The European Court of Human Rights is often in the press and getting itself a bad name among the public. This is because it does appear to on the face of it come up with rights for those who we deem to have little rights because of what these people have done.
Human Rights apply to all of us, be them good or bad people. If you start being selective on human rights then there are no human rights in effect, because you are choosing how they should apply and who to, rather than all. These rights would wear away and start to breakdown.
It would be a dark day if Britain left the convention. How could Britain stand for Human Rights while lecturing other countries about their violation of them after leaving the European Court of Human Rights. How would that look when so many other countries are signed up to them within Europe. Do we say that the European Rights went to far for us Brits? But are good enough for France and Germany, Russian and Spain etc
There is often confusion with the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights which is not made clear by our media. There are 47 members who are signed into the European Convention on Human Rights. There are only 27 members of the European Union. The European court would be there with or without the EU. Each of the 47 countries are elected by the 47 states. The judges for these states are equal to the number of states who are signed up to the convention. It is not controlled by politics and nor should it be.
I'm not sure why anyone would be expecting a British bill of Human Rights to effect the conclusions of the European Court of Human Rights. The bill would change the relationship between the courts but we would still be signed up to the European Court of Human Rights.
Remember some of the stories you read on the Human Rights have not actually come to pass and when it does produce a common sense ruling then that is not reported. For example the patients at Broadmoor demanding state benefits under human rights laws, was already thrown out once and will be again because they don't have a need for this benefit. See the Daily Express take on the story here.