Leaving the echr

1 It gives the individual citizen the right of legal redress against the powerful state should the citizens rights to basic standards of freedom and equality are breached.
2 It restrains the ability of the state to make laws removing those standards even should it hold a large democratic majority. I do believe in the concept of a democratic dictatorship, Putin would probably win an election without any fiddles at the ballot box.
3 It underpins the concept of an independent judiciary from the state, and if you think the state would not arm twist the law and police watch the documentary on the miners strike where the home office rewrote the handbook on policing public order, pre trained parts of the police force into a more para military form in preparation for the strike. Arresting officers were instructed on the wording to be included in their statements to ensure more serious charges and when officers refused, their statements were rewritten to include them and the officer refused permission to see the modified charge sheet in there name.
4 We could come out and have our own, but Mr Johnson and co want that the replacement would make rulings more to its political likes,a more controlled and less troublesome court. Why else want change. Which just about neuters all the above reasons of having one at all. A effective court keeps a cold eye on politicians and political party's and constrains them acting in our interests when in fact it's their interests which are being pursued.

If we have a sane, sensible, responsible government that wouldn't even consider breaching any of those basic rights... then you're right, we don't.

It only becomes invaluable if we have a government that aren't and would. Heaven forfend.

Remember, given it's the same courts that'd be ruling on breaches of a proposed "British bill", then the only reason to leave the existing framework is to weaken those protections. It's eminently possible to introduce additional ones on top. So which of these articles, these rights do you believe is unnecessary?
www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG

Well, let's look at that without the Daily Express perma-outrage spin on it...

First off, it's a UK court decision, not a "foreign" one.
tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2024-002035

Then when you read that, it becomes very clear that it's not Binaj's rights that are being considered. It's clearly expressed in that judgement that if he were to be viewed alone, there is no reason at all why he should not be deported.

The case is about his 4yo son's rights - a British national who was born here and has lived here his entire life. The child's mother is in poor health, and cannot care for him alone.

The first UK court to hear it ruled he should be deported.
The appeal tribunal decided that the first court made an error of process in not properly considering the wife and son's rights.

But let's go back another step, and look at the actual ECHR article. In totality, it reads...
"ARTICLE 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"

Why should a 4yo British kid not have that right, in your view? Why should a 4yo British kid and his ill mother be forced to choose between living in the country they've lived in legally for many years, or having their family broken up - with the child probably going into care?

You may or may not agree with the British court's ruling. The courts themselves are disagreeing, and there's still higher levels of court for the Home Office to appeal to, all the way to the Supreme Court if required.
But that's not the question here. These are the exact same courts that would rule on any other breach of British law, including this putative British Bill of Rights.
The question is what is so wrong with the wording of that article, with the right as it is granted?
How SHOULD it be worded - or is there no such right necessary?

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the ECHR - drafted by largely British lawyers at the instigation of the well-known left winger Winston Churchill, and enforced here by British courts.

So a 4yo should go into care and have his entire life chances ruled just because his father's a criminal and his mother's ill.

Have you actually read the ruling? It's very clear this is not about the father's rights.

So we don't jail or otherwise punish any criminal father with kids where the mother is ill or not around, and vice versa.

from a personal viewpoint that was the excuse a mother ( right to a family life )  used when she stole thousands of pounds from her kids - the fact that one of the kids lived with his father and had broken off all contact with mother, and social services said that father could provide a stable home for all the children, was seen as inconvenient facts by the courts. The judge even said that had she been a man she would have received at least 2 year in jail, what did she get, 3 months probation.
The child that had to push to have his mother prosecuted struggled for years mentally and financially as a result of those crimes, and having to give evidence. ( she stole several thousand pound from him and was ordered to repay £5 a month).