OK, one sentence at a time:
Is the human rights act doing more harm to British justice and the British ecconomy,than it benefits us - no, it benefits us more.
As one of the most civilised countries in the world I think we are more than capable of having our own constitution or bill of rights. - well we hadn't had one written in the previous 1000+ years of recognisable English polity, so your statement is wrong.
The human rights act not only undermines our own justice system, - no it doesn't. It in fact formalises several conventions that already existed in UK case law & precendence. Far from undermining UK justice, it actually strengthens a lot of things.
but has created a compensation culture that is costing the tax payer an absolute fortune in legal aid for both nationals & immigrants - that culture existed prior to the UK signing the EHCR, for a variety of different socioeconomic reasons that you're not going to understand. Also, legal aid is pretty much impossible to get for anything these days.
People are constantly seeing the human rights of criminals & terrorists put before the victims of crime, & find the illogicality of it hard to understand as it so often flies in the face of common sense - no, they are constantly seeing the reporting of those cases, against other cases judged under the EHCR. This point also undermines your earlier statement about the civilisational development of the British isles - you're talking about the differences between the concept of 'natural' justice, universal human rights and 'common sense' (the latter being neither common, nor sense of any kind)
These laws are made by people we don't know, didn't elect, & often have no experience in law. Furthermore they often come from countries who's human rights are questionable. - Actually, the person most responsible for the EHCR, as well as the UNCHR & US constitution, was an Englishman by the name of Thomas Paine. Perhaps you should read his short book 'The Rights Of Man' before talking more.