Refusing to give up: Naked Rambler Stephen Gough, 54, has lost his case in Europe's human rights court . Human rights judges have told Britain's best-known naturist he cannot avoid arrest for walking in the nude. 'Naked Rambler' Stephen Gough has spent more than five years in jails and police cells for refusing to wear clothes - and insisted his treatment by police violated his fundamental rights. The 54-year-old was repeatedly jailed for contempt of court after bringing his naturism into the dock, then was isolated in prison because he was naked there too. He brought his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, saying police and prison officers had violated his rights to free expression and a private life. Today the court ruled in favour of the government in both cases, saying that while the case was 'troubling' Mr Gough had 'full knowledge of the consequences' when he set off on his naked treks. It added his behaviour 'goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society' and was 'alarming and morally offensive'. Mr Gough, a former marine, has walked naked from John O’Groats to Land’s End and is a well-known campaigner for his right to appear nude in public. But his actions have repeatedly landed him in prison. He spent a total of five years and three months in detention from May 2006 to July 2011, when his arrests for breaching the peace sparked the human rights appeal. Today's ruling, led by Latvian human rights court president Ineta Ziemele, is the culmination of a long legal battle with the authorities by Mr Gough - who has repeatedly refused to back down. Mr Gough today described the judgment as 'a disappointment' but added: 'I have no choice but to continue.' He did win 3,000 Euros (£2,360) in damages for 'distress as a result of the physical conditions of his detention', but this was substantially less than the 195,000 Euros (£154,000) he demanded. Mr Gough - who was in detention almost constantly between 2006 and 2011 - said: 'How can nature expressed in human form be indecent? How can any sane person be offended at seeing the human body?' Cheek: Even in prison, Mr Gough was often segregated because he did not accept guards' offer of clothing . Hard fighter: Mr Gough did win £2,360 in damages, but this was less than the £154,000 he had asked for . The ruling read: 'The applicant’s imprisonment is the consequence of his repeated violation of the criminal law in full knowledge of the consequences. '[This was] through conduct which he knew full well not only goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society, but also is liable to be alarming and morally and otherwise offensive to other, unwarned members of the public going about their ordinary business.. The court described Gough’s case as 'troubling' but ruled that 'relevant and sufficient' measures had been taken against him by the police and legal authorities. They were meeting a 'pressing social need in response to repeated anti-social conduct' by Gough, the ruling added. There was no violation of his freedom of expression, the judges ruled, and he was not afforded the right to a 'private life' because his nudity was a public protest. In trouble again: The case was finally sparked by his treatment at Perth Sheriff Court in July 2011 (left) after years of public notoriety, which included walking to Lands End with his girlfriend Melanie Roberts in 2003 . Judges said his behaviour 'goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern society' They wrote: 'The applicant, by deliberately and consistently appearing naked in very public places such as urban centres, courtrooms and the communal parts of prisons, was intent on making a public statement of his belief in the inoffensive nature of the human body. 'Even though, cumulatively, the penalties imposed on the applicant undoubtedly did entail serious consequences for him, the court cannot find in the circumstances of his case, having regard in particular to his own responsibility for his plight, that the public authorities in Scotland unjustifiably interfered with his exercise of freedom of expression.' On one occasion in 2009 court officials hastily erected a screen around Mr Gough's privates to prevent him being in contempt of court. Two years later he walked out of Perth Prison naked after a jail term, and was approached by police within minutes - but still refused to put on his clothes. He appeared naked once again in court as he pleaded not guilty to breaching the peace - rejecting the sheriff’s warnings that he would be held in contempt again if he did not put some clothes on. The Scottish courts found Gough’s conduct on that occasion was severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people, threatened serious disturbance to the community, and presented as genuinely alarming in its context to any reasonable person. He was jailed to 330 days for the breach of the peace and 90 days for contempt, together with 237 days unspent from a previous sentence - landing him a total jail term of one year, nine months and 18 days. Mr Gough said today: 'I expected them to take the wider view. They have not. 'Then again, what great endeavour ever succeeded without having to surmount many obstacles that stood in its way? Why should it be any different for me? I have no choice but to continue.' Not saying goodbye: Mr Gough, pictured, has vowed to continue his naked quest despite the ruiling . He added: 'How can nature expressed in human form be indecent? How can any sane person be offended at seeing the human body? 'Intolerance and ignorance go together, in the same way that freedom and truth do. We cannot be intolerant and free. We cannot ignore the truth and expect justice to be the outcome. And an unjust world affects us all, whether we are aware of it or not. 'I was brought up to believe I lived in a country that celebrated eccentricity and difference, not only because it added variety and colour to the otherwise slavish conformity that can feel depressive, constricting and sometimes just downright boring, but that it also indicated a deeper appreciation of how the unorthodox, at its very essence, is how originality and creative energy manifests itself.'
Ex-marine Stephen Gough, 54, has spent more than five years in cells .
He challenged string of arrests in the European Court of Human Rights .
But Strasbourg ruled today he had 'full knowledge of the consequences'
Case 'troubling' but his right to free expression not violated, judges said .
They ruled his walks in the nude were 'alarming and morally offensive'
He did however win £2,300 damages - and vowed to continue his habit .
Refusing to give up: Naked Rambler Stephen Gough, 54, has lost his case in Europe's human rights court . Human rights judges have told Britain's best-known naturist he cannot avoid arrest for walking in the nude. 'Naked Rambler' Stephen Gough has spent more than five years in jails and police cells for refusing to wear clothes - and insisted his treatment by police violated his fundamental rights. The 54-year-old was repeatedly jailed for contempt of court after bringing his naturism into the dock, then was isolated in prison because he was naked there too. He brought his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, saying police and prison officers had violated his rights to free expression and a private life. Today the court ruled in favour of the government in both cases, saying that while the case was 'troubling' Mr Gough had 'full knowledge of the consequences' when he set off on his naked treks. It added his behaviour 'goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society' and was 'alarming and morally offensive'. Mr Gough, a former marine, has walked naked from John O’Groats to Land’s End and is a well-known campaigner for his right to appear nude in public. But his actions have repeatedly landed him in prison. He spent a total of five years and three months in detention from May 2006 to July 2011, when his arrests for breaching the peace sparked the human rights appeal. Today's ruling, led by Latvian human rights court president Ineta Ziemele, is the culmination of a long legal battle with the authorities by Mr Gough - who has repeatedly refused to back down. Mr Gough today described the judgment as 'a disappointment' but added: 'I have no choice but to continue.' He did win 3,000 Euros (£2,360) in damages for 'distress as a result of the physical conditions of his detention', but this was substantially less than the 195,000 Euros (£154,000) he demanded. Mr Gough - who was in detention almost constantly between 2006 and 2011 - said: 'How can nature expressed in human form be indecent? How can any sane person be offended at seeing the human body?' Cheek: Even in prison, Mr Gough was often segregated because he did not accept guards' offer of clothing . Hard fighter: Mr Gough did win £2,360 in damages, but this was less than the £154,000 he had asked for . The ruling read: 'The applicant’s imprisonment is the consequence of his repeated violation of the criminal law in full knowledge of the consequences. '[This was] through conduct which he knew full well not only goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society, but also is liable to be alarming and morally and otherwise offensive to other, unwarned members of the public going about their ordinary business.. The court described Gough’s case as 'troubling' but ruled that 'relevant and sufficient' measures had been taken against him by the police and legal authorities. They were meeting a 'pressing social need in response to repeated anti-social conduct' by Gough, the ruling added. There was no violation of his freedom of expression, the judges ruled, and he was not afforded the right to a 'private life' because his nudity was a public protest. In trouble again: The case was finally sparked by his treatment at Perth Sheriff Court in July 2011 (left) after years of public notoriety, which included walking to Lands End with his girlfriend Melanie Roberts in 2003 . Judges said his behaviour 'goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern society' They wrote: 'The applicant, by deliberately and consistently appearing naked in very public places such as urban centres, courtrooms and the communal parts of prisons, was intent on making a public statement of his belief in the inoffensive nature of the human body. 'Even though, cumulatively, the penalties imposed on the applicant undoubtedly did entail serious consequences for him, the court cannot find in the circumstances of his case, having regard in particular to his own responsibility for his plight, that the public authorities in Scotland unjustifiably interfered with his exercise of freedom of expression.' On one occasion in 2009 court officials hastily erected a screen around Mr Gough's privates to prevent him being in contempt of court. Two years later he walked out of Perth Prison naked after a jail term, and was approached by police within minutes - but still refused to put on his clothes. He appeared naked once again in court as he pleaded not guilty to breaching the peace - rejecting the sheriff’s warnings that he would be held in contempt again if he did not put some clothes on. The Scottish courts found Gough’s conduct on that occasion was severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people, threatened serious disturbance to the community, and presented as genuinely alarming in its context to any reasonable person. He was jailed to 330 days for the breach of the peace and 90 days for contempt, together with 237 days unspent from a previous sentence - landing him a total jail term of one year, nine months and 18 days. Mr Gough said today: 'I expected them to take the wider view. They have not. 'Then again, what great endeavour ever succeeded without having to surmount many obstacles that stood in its way? Why should it be any different for me? I have no choice but to continue.' Not saying goodbye: Mr Gough, pictured, has vowed to continue his naked quest despite the ruiling . He added: 'How can nature expressed in human form be indecent? How can any sane person be offended at seeing the human body? 'Intolerance and ignorance go together, in the same way that freedom and truth do. We cannot be intolerant and free. We cannot ignore the truth and expect justice to be the outcome. And an unjust world affects us all, whether we are aware of it or not. 'I was brought up to believe I lived in a country that celebrated eccentricity and difference, not only because it added variety and colour to the otherwise slavish conformity that can feel depressive, constricting and sometimes just downright boring, but that it also indicated a deeper appreciation of how the unorthodox, at its very essence, is how originality and creative energy manifests itself.'
walking in the nude. 'Naked Rambler' Stephen Gough has spent more than five years in jails and too. He brought his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, saying police and prison officers had violated his rights to free Gough had 'full knowledge of the consequences' to continue.' He did win 3,000 Euros (£2,360) in be alarming and morally and otherwise offensive described Gough’s case as 'troubling' but ruled judges ruled, and he was not afforded the right Gough, pictured, has vowed to continue his naked