Did you forget that you wrote it, neglect to go back and check, and then attack this person for quoting your literal words? Unbelievable. It's not a "scarecrow," it's a literal, unadulterated quote.
Sorry, I cannot find me ever saying that.
But it is a reference to my earlier sentence where I add: "If they break the law, then they get punished. But its their private property."
The point I am making is that I think its better to leave someone's private property, than to stay, when there is a dispute and there is the threat of physical confrontation. They have more claim to kick you off than you have to stay when force is involved.
I am talking about before we know who is in the right. If I trespass on someone's property that I believe I can rightfully be on, and they threaten to physically remove me, I will leave, and get the police to remove them. If someone trespasses on my property that they claim they have a right to be on, I will make them leave with force if necessary, and then they can get the police to remove me.
I think its sensible to default to the owner in these situations.
But I agree its a weak point and if we examine tenancy laws then it definitely doesn't universally hold well. But a good rule of thumb.
You said I said: "Its their private property and they can do as they wish."
I chose my words carefully, and you have removed some to create your scarecrow.
They have interpreted the contract in one way and acted upon it. Even if the man interpreted it differently, he still should have left.
But ultimately it comes down to who has what to gain and lose. United has more to lose, so United shouldn't have done it.