Leaving the echr

I repeat... This was a UK court, an immigration appeal tribunal. The same court that would rule on breaches of any other law, or of any "British Bill of Rights" that would replace the convention.

The ECHR article IN FULL is...
"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"

...and the ruling is ABSOLUTELY clear that this is about the kid's right to a family life, not the father's right. A 4yo British national who has never lived anywhere but the UK.

So which part of that wording do you find objectionable?

Plenty of 4yr olds start a new life abroad.  There's essentially nothing to stop this criminal being deported back home, his wife and child following if they wish, except for a few bleeding hearts who only care about them and care nothing for the rest of us.  The father cannot speak English, so if they enjoy the relationship he's claiming, it's reasonable to assume the child already knows some Albanian. He's already well ahead of some kids who emigrate. 

Set against that are the rights of the rest of us, the law abiding majority - clearly laid out in the wording you've helpfully provided.  Clause 1, we have the right to respect for our homes.  Clause 2, "except as necessary for" the prevention of crime...or protection of rights of others.  i.e. we have the right to expect the expulsion of illegal immigrant burglars. 

Except our rights, as laid out in Article 8, are being ignored here.

I don't want his type in my country and if that means his wife and child having to leave with him for Albania, he should have thought about that before committing his crimes and starting a family, then using them to tug heartstrings to claim UK citizenship courtesy of the ECHR.  

Which is in direct contradiction to the court which sentenced him to 30 months inside - a sentence he hasn't yet served.   He very clearly is a proven threat to those rights and freedoms, despite what this tribunal might say.  You don't get 30 months inside for organising boy scouts' bring & buy sales.  

IMHO, in Binaj’s case, he should at least to pay all the court fees, prison accommodations, and taxes he earned since entering the UK in order to claim his rights. Not idea if this is legal or not.

Take it up with the courts that interpreted the facts that they had full access to, not me (and definitely not the Express!)...

I asked you which bit of the WORDING you find to be the problem, because that's the only thing that will change here between the EConvHR and the putative British Bill of Rights.
Should there be...
1. No such second clause giving reasons why threats override rights?
2. No such right at all?
3. A differently worded second clause? Worded in what way?

TBF, the arguments being used to leave ECHR are not convincing atm.

If they are talking other eu countries violates ECHR more than the UK and yet not suffering any consequences and we Britons want to do better than ECHR, then it’s probably the starting point.

It won't be the wording that's at fault.  I'm sure that was drafted by lawyers and politicians far smarter than us.  As ever, it will come down to interpretation.  When that interpretation starts working against the interests of the UK populace, as in this case, it's the duty of our political class to start raising questions.  I don't presume to have the answers and am happy to leave it to those elected officials to resolve. 

I'm a simple man, but I will say this.  When a criminal who enters the country illegally, commits serious crimes, gets deported, sneaks in illegally again, is deported again, but can appeal against that claiming his (or his family's) "rights" are being offended, then something doesn't feel right.  It fails the sniff test. The system, set up with all good intention, is being abused.... and we are the worse off for it.