I don't disagree with this particular ruling, Zeuhl. For once the court's ruling and their reasoning seems perfectly logical.
What I do disagree with is the principle that Mr Gough should have the option to take his ridiculous argument to that court at all. He clearly contravenes UK law persistently and blatantly. The particular law with which he disagrees is accepted by the vast majority of the UK population as reasonable and there has never been any widely supported suggestion that it should be rescinded or modified. In short, it is a UK law, passed by the UK Parliament and should reign supreme until that Parliament decides otherwise.
Yes, I agree that having recourse to a higher court to challenge decisions is a sound principle. However I make the proviso that any such court should be under the jurisdiction of the UK and accountable to the UK Parliament. The introduction of Labour's Human Rights Act was supposed to remove the necessity for appellants to lobby the ECHR. The UK's Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter of legal matters here.
If Mr Gough and Buenchico want to see the laws on nudity modified the place to do so is in the UK Parliament (or perhaps the Scottish/Welsh/NI Parliaments if the matter is included under devolved powers). It is not the business of foreign judges (many from nations with a less than good record on "Human Rights") to interfere in UK law and order.