> I would take the position that the private life of a 'celebrity' is not fair game for the media
It's endemic though Andy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_columnist
"Gossip" says it all. It's gossip on a mass-media scale. Some publications even advertise themselves as providing "the goss".
Arbitrating who is and isn't "fair game" for that gossip is a slippery slope. Our private lives are either all fair game (e.g. for the neighbourhood gossip, the local press or the national press) or none of them are. We can't graduate to becoming fair game just because we cross some income or popularity threshold.
We need to decide whether it's all or nothing. If it's all then we have a situation like the USA - free speech and a free press and almost anything goes. It it's nothing then we need much stonger privacy laws, with huge penalties for breaking them. This would create a "no-win no-fee" marketplace so that anybody could get justice if their privacy was infringed, and would make the press more inclined to self-police.