I think a rehab centre is a good thing. It'd make good use of some of the money Winehouse left behind, helping people with similar problems.

Shelving the idea just because it might clash with one of her lyrics would be a bit daft.

But I'm not sure you need to be a good role model to have a medical facility named after you. As for the "no, no. no" line, that's addiction in a nutshell. People who aren't addicts are much more likely to take on board sensible advice from those who love them, while addicts often won't. It's not an "oh so cool" choice to ignore help and to destroy your life in the process, it's a manifestation of the illness.

Regardless of her merits as a singer that song seemed to glorify being off your tits on booze or drink and proud of it too. The number of pissed up women I have heard singing it as some kind of anthem would suggest that is exactly not what she would have wanted her name associated with. She had more help than most in trying to get off the junk but chose not to. Strange then that her folks would invest time and energy in something she openly shunned. Yes it was sad but entirely self destructive.

That that's your half of "we"

This half doesn't need anyone to reconsider anything

You aren't worth the hassle.

Why didn't you post that originally instead of plumping for the tiresome, empty-headed 'Daily Mail-reader' jibe?

...I'll hold my hands up and say (as implied in my earlier post, when I said I try my best not to read about or see news reports about families of deceased 'tabloid celebrities' - for wont of a better expression [I think everyone will know what I mean there: people whose fame had an aspect a tabloid tawdriness about it, whatever their root talent/otherwise] that, if we're being cold-light-of-day serious here, I simply don't know enough about the Winehouse family to pass judgement.

Perhaps its the demands of a fevered media or of some PR advisor (and I really would be stunned if the family didn't have 'people' on board, if only to keep the media at bay) rather than pure coat-tailing on Mr Winehouse's part. But wasn't there some really sleazy druggie upper class guy she was involved with for ages? It'll end in tears...

However.... I HAVE seen, heard and read enough about the post Michael Jackson situation to have a very firm judgement on those guys. Michael will remain their meal ticket, one way or another, for the rest of their lives. All this mawkish stuff about his 'legacy' and the rest of it is fully deserving of Jarvis Cocker's backside. I appreciate others may wish to take a different view, but my jury has long since returned on that one.

And weren't there some awful people/situations coat-tailing in the aftermath of Jade Goody's demise? Again, I don't know much (because I really do choose not to waste my time absorbed with these kind of stories, but you can't help being aware of some of it) - but wasn't there some grim tale about her fiancee/husband...?

Perhaps I'm a kind of cultural snob in seeing some people as 'tabloid people' and doing my best not to know about them but, honestly, we all have to draw a line somewhere and defend our little patch of ground within it. Within my little patch of ground, I'll give as little time or thought as possible to Simon Cowell, Pete Doherty, whoever Cheryl is, whoever Kerry Katona is... You get my drift?

Maybe I'd care about these people as human beings if I met them/knew them - as you've very eloquently suggested, Bluesboy - but as people who clog up the cultural/news media, I just don't care about them and that's a conscious decision.

Anybody else have a similar approach, or am I just a bit odd in that respect?