RE: BACK TO BACKS - 4

#46 by Sheldonboy , Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:18 pm

Phil are the brummy Back to Backs run by the National Trust, I thought they were run by the City Council. SB

#47 by Sheldonboy , Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:18 pm

Phil are the Brummy Back to Backs run by the National Trust, I thought they were run by the City Council. SB

#48 by astoness , Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:39 pm

phil..ive had this conversation before with someone else and the insides of these back to backs make it quite plain what living conditions were like....and we must not forget that there were varying degrees of back to backs..some were not as bad as others...to be fair unless they chuck in a few live rats..have kids begging on the streets and real you no what in the guzunders i dont see what else they can do to show how folk lived..i thought that 6 quid was not to bad a price to pay...trust me phil there is nothing nice about the insides of these houses and the young kids that were going round would definately not like to live in them...no x box 360s for starters lol...

lyn

#49 by Sheldonboy , Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:51 pm

But are they National Trust or Council Museums run.

#50 by astoness , Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:06 pm

they are national trust SB..also a little imagination helps when visiting places of interest...

#51 by Sheldonboy , Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:08 pm

Thank you Lyn. Oh I've got the Imagination, it just runs away with itself sometimes.

#52 by phil ( deleted ) , Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:18 pm

SB

They are National Trust as far as I am aware.

Lyn

Take no notice of me, but this is an argument that I have a lot and its something I feel strongly about. If the National Trust in conjunction with Birmingham City Council want to show what life was like in the back to back slums, why don't they show a better representation of it. The Black Country Museum do a better job of it.

I have seen film and photos of the back to backs and I lived in them. Yes the renovated examples show the sizes and the cramped conditions. What they don't show is families of 15 living in 3 rooms, what they don't show is the poor condition and state of repair that these properties were kept in. Lyn how does this photo of a back to back in Hurst St relate to the photos that you posted.

Phil

#53 by Sheldonboy , Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:33 pm

As far as I am aware Phil the largest Landlord of slum properties was the Church of England. But they will say at least they provided homes for the poor.

#54 by astoness , Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:49 pm

phil ive got that pic and of course it does not and nor will it never compere..its impossible cos if they left them in that state they would have colasped years ago...then of course we have the health and safety issue so once again it is impossible to have properties for us to see as they would have been in all their squalor...phil this is why i and i would think you set so much store by collecting pics like the one you have just posted because they tell it as it was..the camera does not lie..dont know if you read one of my posts further back but i was saying that after watching a dvd of the back to backs in the 20s or 30s..cant quite recall which i was reduced to tears and although the little back to back where i was born was as clean as a new pin albeit cramped i am under no illusion as to the conditions of some of them...i went to the black country museum about 3 years ago but would like to go again as they have added to it since then..i now beleive there are 2 chippies lol...had to queue up for well over an hour last time...worth it though... oh and phil..you know i would never ignore you...

#55 by phil ( deleted ) , Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:03 pm

Lyn

Yes I agree that some back to backs were as clean as a new pin. We had bare floorboards in the bedrooms, but they were scrubbed every day. What good was that when the property was falling down and riddled with damp and rot.

No matter how clean you kept your own house you can bet that not a couple of doors away some drunkard with an alcoholic wife with 10 kids would be living in a hovel that wasn't fit for pigs. You could also bet that at least twice a week they or someone else would be out in the street fighting.

In all my time living in a back to back environment I never saw a policeman or a social services worker or even a repair man from the Council. The rent collector came as regular as clockwork so did the school board man as most kids were out trying to earn a few bob rather than being at school.

I did see plenty of poverty and even as young as I was I could see that nobody in charge gave a damn. I think this is why my roots today remain firmly set in my working class background.

Phil

#56 by astoness , Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:19 pm

totally understand phil..you have memories that far outway mine but its memories like your and others that write the history books...

#57 by signman ( deleted ) , Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:49 am

Morning all,
Lyn and Phil, I agree with you both, but I'm inclined to lean towards Phils point of view, some of the sites I saw as a lad would beggar belief.
Lyn, do you keep all your Brummagem magazines, if so I need you to look something up from a couple of years ago.

#58 by Voltman , Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:37 am

Posted by phil
Lyn
No matter how clean you kept your own house you can bet that not a couple of doors away some drunkard with an alcoholic wife with 10 kids would be living in a hovel that wasn't fit for pigs. You could also bet that at least twice a week they or someone else would be out in the street fighting.Phil

So what's changed?

#59 by astoness , Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:04 am

hi john...ive got a few mags dotted around...what did you need looking up...

lyn

#60 by phil ( deleted ) , Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:28 am

VM

I tend to agree that not much has changed, but at least there are attempts to change things. As half hearted as they may be today back then there was no attempt to change anything. As much as I hated Manzoni for the way he did it, at least he and his crew got rid of the slums. I just think he could have done it differently.

Phil

Posts:	43.994
Date registered	12.22.2009

Posts:	43.994
Date registered	12.22.2009

Posts:	15.017
Date registered	02.24.2010

Posts:	43.994
Date registered	12.22.2009

Posts:	15.017
Date registered	02.24.2010


	Mainly For Brummies But All Are Welcome To Join In The Birmingham Fun & Chat