In Arista's defence - He is right. He is - predictably - under attack because he dares to 'Speak The Truth Which Dare Not Speak Its Name', but the protests and criticism is misplaced.
Let's start by IDENTIFYING just WHAT is meant by the all-sweeping term "Homeless":
First of all, a considerable number of 'homeless' people ELECT to be 'homeless' because they are nomadic/hippie in spirit and nature and do not want what they regard as 'conformist' lives. YES - they CHOOSE to 'doss' outdoors.
An even greater number of 'homeless' people MAKE themselves homeless becuse they deliberately and repeatedly do NOT honour many - or even any - of the conditions in their Tenancy Agreements. These breaches include:
a) Wifully NOT paying the rent - even when the British taxpayer has funded that rent - and electing to spend the money given to them instead, on drugs, drink, gambling, or simply using it to fund a lifestyle BEYOND their means.
b) Trashing their rented accommodation, including NEVER cleaning any of the white goods, filling every room with rotting rubbish or dozens of putrid bin bags, damaging the fixtures and fittings by wilful abuse, allowing other druggies and drunks to 'squat' there without permission, keeping one or more dogs or other pets without permission - usually while selfishly failing to look after them properly, leaving them locked in a room until the dog faeces is so bad that they then move them into another room. Each new 'pet prison' is left with new doors scratched through to a depth of an inch or more, and window cills chewed away.
c) Converting the house or rooms in it, into 'Cannabis Farms' - leaving holes in ceilings and doors cut through to accomodate ventilation ducting, and water damaged floors, and the stench of cannabis permeating the decorations, plasterwork and all the internal fabric of the property.
Then, an ever greater number of 'homeless' people are 'homeless' by default because they are 'mentally ill' or socially ill-equipped to manage their affairs - especially fiscally - and continually fall foul of some or most of the conditions of their Tenancy Areements, and THESE are the TRUE homeless.
THESE are the people who the Social Services are failing.
THESE are the people who genuinely NEED professional help and care.
THESE are the people who NEED sheltered accomodation. The other types of 'homeless' listed above are NOT needing of sympathy or help, and - just as with the scroungers and fraudsters who abuse the Benefits System - GIVING them sympathy, help, and money, is doing so at the EXPENSE of the GENUINE people who NEED it .
As for Arista's suggestions - just WHAT is so WRONG with them?
I mean REALLY wrong - not just irrational umbrage from disgruntled anti-Tory factions grinding their own axes.
Are any of you REALLY saying, that housing those sleeping rough on the streets in purposely converted accommodation is NOT a BETTER solution than allowing them to live on the streets because other ORTHODOX options have been persistently abused by these people and other resolutions are NOT FINANCIALLY viable?
As Arista said; these are 'Huts' in name only, but will be modern clean, attractive homes with fitted kitchens, bathrooms with showers and every other facility which conventional accommodation could boast.
They are NOT 'gulags', NOT 'workhouses', NOT 'jungle camps - they will be modern, bright, attractive communities with gardens and flower beds, street lighting and shops etc - much like fixed mobile home parks in seaside resorts.
For years now, working people in a host of countries - who are NOT homeless - have been buying modern new homes which have been converted from shipping containers, and they are NOT complaining:
They are NOT complaining, because these converted homes are attractive, and functional, and offer them a chance to own their own homes which they otherwise could NOT afford.
For decades now people have been living happily in communities of prefabricated houses such as 'Airey' houses, and they have made smart and attractive 'Homes' from these prefabs.
For decades too, our military have lived for long periods in similar.
There have been very few 'Bad' houses built but there are tens of thousands of 'Bad' tenants - some of whom eventually become 'Homeless', and where these homeless ARE genuine cases in need of help, then help is what they should be given.
There is nothing wrong with offering the rest a warm, clean, 'home' in a modern bright community - in my opinion.