Good summary, Broadstairs. I agree with all of it.
However...
Now to answer the point about SLRs the main benefit IMHO is not the lack of parallax error in the viewfinder (which really only affects close-up work) but the option to interchange lenses.
Hmmm. In the 'old' days, non SLR cameras (e.g. Leica rangefinders, or the Russian 'Zorki'clones) also had interchangeable lenses. And these days, I see no reason that a digital compact shouldn't have interchangeable lenses, if a manufacturer chose to provide such a feature. I do accept that SLRs generally provide more advanced technology, and the cheap compacts do tend to have the lens and sensor as an integrated assembly, but surely that needn't always be the case? I still don't really see why a Single Lens Reflex action provides any intrinsic advantage for digital cameras.
And parralax distortion is not the only issue with (non-SLR) optical viewfinders. You'll invariably find that the viewfinder includes a little 'box' superimposed on the scene, which frames the picture. But the position of that box, and the accuracy of it, depends on how close the camera is to your eye, and whether you're looking straight through it or slightly askew. SLRs overcome that (I think all would agree), and in my opinion (but maybe not everybodies) so does the LCD on a compact digital.
But I'm getting away from Floydoid's request for advice One specific recomendation I'd like to make is the current Panasonic 'lumix' series, which I've owned for about a year now. They have a good lens with an optical zoom of up to 10-12 times depending on model, some have optical stabilisation and IMHO are excellent in every respect, including the 'handling' aspects, at least for my hands. Unfortunately they don't have an optical viewfinder, there's no room for one, the LCDs so big, which might be a show-stopper depending on whether you're long or short sighted. And they're closer to £200 than £100, although you do find them discounted.