What confused me most is that he was arrested twice. It seems non-nonsensical to arrest him a second time (rather than simply charge him), given that he was already in police custody.
Does this signify something meaningful, such as a change of which legal basis the arrest is under, and thus a change to the rights he has?
Section 31 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act:
Where—
(a) a person—
(i) has been arrested for an offence; and
(ii) is at a police station in consequence of that arrest; and
(b) it appears to a constable that, if he were released from that arrest, he would be liable to arrest for some other offence,
he shall be arrested for that other offence.
That's because arresting someone isn't so much a matter of their physical custody as initiation of a legal process involving an assertion of custody. Think of it like process serving in civil cases, where it's easy to imagine multiple lawsuits proceeding in parallel.
Or "official" form... see Japan's legal system, where prosecutors interrogate those arrested without legal council, and the right to post bail can be an award for a confession.
Has he been arrested for skipping bail on a UK court warrant? Yes.
Has he been arrested on a US indictment for extradition? Also yes.
These are two separate arrests. It just happens that one was once he was already at a police station. http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assan...
Edit: apparently the Swedish extradition is spinning up as well.