Indeed; Churchill and Adenauer, not exactly pinko-commie leftie Islingtonites, pushed hard for it. Churchill realised that Britain could only exert a 'civilising influence' on some European countries if it signed up itself, otherwise it would have zero moral authority. They saw the threat that the Soviet Union presented, not only in military terms but in political terms, as many European countries, even those west of the iron curtain, could fall into dictatorship supported by the Soviet Union. OK, so now the USSR is gone, but given the power hunger of Mr Putin and the parlous state of public finances in some western European countries, it's still quite possible that western European states can be destabilised and end up with nasty dictatorships; perhaps even more so than in the 50s given the financial crisis.
Unfortunately the ECHR has been caught up, quite incorrectly, in the whole EU debate, and however much you tell some people that these are completely seperate institutions, many fail to understand that. Also, a few unusual cases have led to bad publicity, but in general the ECHR serves a very useful purpose; some in the UK, NL or Germany might say "it's not necessary here" because those countries generally respect the human rights of their citizens and residents, but it is necessary to exert influence on those that don't, and it might even be necessary for the those countries given recent governments' behaviour with more and more intrusive powers for intelligence and now taxes.
