I'm beginning to have certain sympathy with my Dad who used to moan about the country being run by lawyers.
The question as to whether David Cameron's proposal for a British Bill of Rights would actually make any difference is one that already has the lawyers locking their horns.
The case for - I'm told - is that the European Court of Human Rights grants countries with their own written constitutions or bills of rights (eg Germany) what's called "a margin of appreciation" - a bit of leeway, to the likes of you and me. In addition, Britain could, like France, seek certain "reservations" on the convention allowing considerations of national security to outweigh human rights considerations.
The case against is that, ultimately, the court in Strasbourg would decide and so a new Bill would make no difference.
Rest assured that however expert lawyers may be, there is no single correct answer - giving fresh potency to that old cliché that when it comes to the law "you pays yer money and you make your choice".