My view is that the end should have been carried out differently and that there are lessons for both 'sides' as well as some wider questions to be asked about animal farming.
I'm not an expert on Bovine TB and I doubt anyone on here is either. I share the misgivings a lot of people have about the testing procedures. I am concerned that money and politics might override science and that in future we might find this testing approach abandoned. Certainly if it considered flawed DEFRA should he transparent about it. History shows these things tend to come out in the end. I also find the fact that HM wasn't allowed to obtain her own test rather bizarre. However, ultimately this has been a 4-year legal battle which went through the High Court on appeal. The law can be an ass as the saying goes but I'm fairly confident that over 4 years every argument has been discussed at length. Unless we want to abandon our judicial processes in this country and take matters into our own hands every time we get a verdict we disagree with, we have to abide by the ruling.
My natural sympathy is towards HM (and Geronimo). I understand her perspective. However, she's clearly an intelligent woman who knew what the planned intention was - Geronimo's euthanasia. Therefore, she should have had a contingency in plan for when the battle was lost, however much she intended to fight it to the end and believed she might win. If it had been me in her situation I'd have had my own vet (or one of the several supporting her) on standby and when DEFRA arrived been ready to ask them to wait outside the enclosure while Geronimo was gently euthanized in his home environment with me present. Easing the last moments is the final act of kindness an owner can give.
That said, I think DEFRA could have perhaps suggested and facilitated that option when they arrived rather than plan to take him away and contribute to his stress. Perhaps they did. Or perhaps they discounted it because the presence of protesters would have made that impossible. We don't know.
Ultimately, the stress caused to Geronimo was down to him being chased around a field, handled by strangers, and taken to a strange facility on his own. The protesters have to bear some culpability for that. It was obvious at the point where the authorities turned up and explained their intentions that the outcome was unavoidable. At that point it would have been kinder to step back rather than wind up the poor animal and contribute to his stress.
There was nothing DEFRA could do to avoid causing that additional stress without HM's co-operation - other than not take Geronimo. Short of government intervention at the last moment, which didn't happen, they had no choice but to go in and take him.
The police were there to prevent a breach of the peace by protecting DEFRA staff. They did not seek the warrant nor have any involvement in the decision making about his death. Yes, the police are supposed to be impartial but that doesn't extend to ignoring the law. Their overriding remit is to uphold the law. In this case the law said Geronimo had to be euthanized and that anyone preventing this was breaking the law. The police cannot pick and choose which laws they follow.
There are some huge questions to be asked about intensive animal farming and if anything good comes out of Gerinimo's death I hope it is a renewed, productive discussion about this. As humans we evolved to eat meat. The real debate is not meat eating v vegetarianism but how meat eating can be facilitated in a way that properly respects animal rights and environmental concerns. We may all have to accept that eating less meat and paying a lot more for it is the only way to enable this if farming is to remain viable under higher standards.