Re: The Swedes do not want him.
It's quite hard to be as wrong as you are, without effort. I would wager you've read the Wikileaks defense site, and not much else.
They didn't initially interview him in london, because at first (and I mean very first, september/october 2010) he kept saying, through his lawyer, that he was coming back to Sweden. When Ny got tired of the lies, she applied for hte EAW. At that point, there was no need to interview in London, because she was going to have him in sweden.
And BTW, it wasn't 'just for an interview', as she made clear to Hurtig (Assange's defense lawyer) the morning he went to the UK, she intended to place him in custody at the interview the following day. Now, Why would Assange suddenly (and yes, it was sudden) go to the UK that night, when he had NOTHING planned? Well, because it's the only place he could go that day, and stay for 30+ days. Now, his lawyer can't even be certain he didn't tell Assange that he would be arrested the next day, which considering he was certain (to the point of testifying and informing his experts) that Ny made no attempts to interiew assange and that assange could leave the country (which turned out to be a lie, with messages still on his phone exposing that lie at the hearing) then yes, preponderance of evidcence is that he was told he'd be remanded (as is *standard* for such cases, in fact one defense expert was amazed it hadn't been done earlier, as he would have done).
Now, that's why no UK interview until June 2012. Then Assange enters the embassy. Now there's a problem. See, The interview is a legal formality prior to arrest. It's going to be nigh-on impossible to put him on remand now he's in the embassy, so it wouldn't be able to proceed under the restrictions placed by the embassy.
Not that they didn't try later. At one point they sent a request to interview 5 weeks later by email and registered mail. When they turned up, no answer at the door. 6 months later the embassy wrote back saying 'no'.
As for the 'not charging', are you using the Swedish definition of charging, or the UK/US one?
The Swedish definition is irrelevant, because it's done right before trial, after arrest, because there's a strict clock of (I think) 20 days between charging, and the trial beginning, and the trial can't be paused mid-way through. So not being 'charged' is the same thing as 'not gone to trial' in Swedish terms.
Now, if you meant the UK definiton of charged, I've got a bit of sad news for you. They tried that claim in the UK High Court in November 2011. The judge said 'Mr Assange fails on the facts here', which is High Court speak for 'stop lying', and said that the actions he'd undergone in Sweden were the equivilent of the UK 'charging', the fact that it was in Sweden and so a UK custody sergeant didn't say 'I charge you' didn't mean he wasn't 'charged' under the meaning of UK law. For legal terms, he'd been 'charged' to the UK definition in the Stockholm District Court in October 2010, when the EAW was given, and those charges were affirmed (if reduced slightly) by the Svea Appeals court a short time after.
In short, he WAS charged, under the UK definition (albeit in absentia, but with his lawyer there) or not charged because the notion is irrelevant under the Swedish definition.
As the High Court would say, Aberglas fails on the facts in this case.