Law is littered with unwanted precedents. They are not, generally, compelling reasons to act in a sane and thoughtful way, and rarely (especially with such obvious edge cases as this) inform future decisions.

Is there actually an arrest warrant in Sweden for Assange? It's a highly convoluted arrangement between the UK (ostensibly keen to arrest, to satisfy their Swedish colleagues) and Sweden (who wish to question).

UK's position to extradite a person from another country into Sweden would not be weakened by any actions in this particular case. There's no precedent for that kind of prevarication.

Finally, you seem to imply that Assange would rather metaphorically 'wither and rot' (asserting facts not in evidence) in an embassy, rather than wither and rot (almost definitely guaranteed to be in the near-literal interpretation in a much more restrictive US-funded establishment), with the rather ambiguous phrase of 'deal with charges against him'. The charges, which haven't technically been made by the Swedes, and, on the face of it, are a smidge dubious, aren't what he's avoiding - it's the non-made charges that would occur once Sweden shipped him off to NOT 'deal with the charges against him' likely to be levelled by the US.

Do you think Snowden, Manning, et al are 'paranoid' (quotes to reflect implied inappropriate concern for self-wellbeing).