I don't think they had had them under surveillance for that much time to be honest. I wouldn't like to second guess what the actual intelligence and risk assessment was, but if it was me doing it, I don't think I'd have done it this way if I believed there actually was a bomb there, primed and ready to go. Evacuation would have been very near the top of my priorities in such a case, at least down to as close as I could get without risking being noticed by the suspect, or, at least, simultaneous with the rapid entry, working from next door outwards. As I said before, it looks like the information was preparation, with a potential primed bomb as a "What if ...".
I appreciate what you say about the difference between a charged police officer walking into Court and (eg) Kenneth Noye being in an armed convoy ... but (except in extremely unusual circumstances) the police officer, at worst, has made an error of judgement in trying to do their lawful job whilst (eg) Kenneth Noye has been involved in other serious crime (robbery, handlng stolen gold, whatever). Each case is treated on it's risk assessment and previous character, escape risk, associates capable of seeking to free, etc. are all taken into account. How the media then report it is a matter for them (though, I do agree, the police sometimes do milk it for all it's worth).
You cannot have openness and transparency AND accountability to the law simultaneously, at least not at the start of an investigation. If things are put into the public domain they risk prejudicing any trial. The accountability (which I think is most important) comes in the form of IPCC investigators asking what happened and why, gathering all the evidence and forming an opinion, as professional investigators, as to whether or not charges are justified. This is followed by a review of the evidence by (very senior, experienced) CPS lawyers and (usually) counsel. And, if they believe there is a case to answer, by a Court trial. There may also be internal disciplinary proceedings after that. And, in fatal cases, an inquest.
The whole process takes far too long, partially because of justifiable reasons (investigations simply do take ages to do thoroughly) and partially due to ineria and delays in the system (particularly in dealing with disciplinary matters). Thus "accountability" may go on literally for years (see the Harry Stanley case - the officers were still being asked to account for their actions five or more years later.
Only once accountability has been taken as far as it needs can openness and transparency take precedence. This should (in my opinion) take the form of a release of all possible evidence to the public domain. Sadly this is not standard practice and, when it does take place, it tends to be very "thin". The 7 July narrative is an example of what I mean by thin - it would have been possible to release a huge amount of actual evidence in support of the facts stated in the narrative - the facts are not secret, they are included, so why not release the supporting evidence so the public can know. An example of openness and transparency occured this week when Greater Manchester Police released CCTV footage of the Manchester bomb exploding - held back until now bcause it may be evidence in proceedings but now released because a review of the case has concluded there is "no realistic chance of a conviction".
Once
.
