It has been, from time to time, a bit like Churchill and democracy. I can't think of a better way of dealing with the issue than leaving it to the discretion of judges, and as with any judgment, one can always argue the toss and agree or disagree with those final decisions.
We do -- I think the -- some of the main problems arose from the Fontaniva(?) case, where it was -- broadly, the continental view of privacy, which is pretty much everything is private unless we seek to make it otherwise, began to seep in from that judgment, which we regarded as wrong and dangerous.
However, subsequently, in any of the many cases involving footballers or others in the public eye, these are difficult issues and there does need to be a public interest -- a strong public interest defence. One could literally go case by case through them and say: yes, no, yes, no or possibly.
We would very much assume a public interest unless there is a convincing argument that there isn't, and certainly the public realm is a public place.