Prh47bridge,
I'm afraid several of the points made in your post are at best misleading.
"Figures from the NHS suggest that c-section carries three times the risk of death for the mother compared to vaginal delivery. However, this direct comparison may be misleading. C-section is often used in situations where the mother is already at risk. More detailed studies suggest the differences in mortality rates are small but that c-section is more risky for the mother."
These statistics are flawed because when a vaginal birth goes wrong and a section saves tone or two lives, they put everything that went wrong into the c-section statistics. Those statistics belong in a failed vaginal category. But, they are often quoted in association with the section. Theonly way to really determine the risks of a section is to perform elective sections and compare them to vaginal births where the babies were born at the exact same gestational age with mothers and fathers of the exact same medical history. I imagine this would be near impossible to organise.
"C-section, of course, has the usual risks of post-operative problems associated with abdominal surgery."
And vaginal birth, of course, has the usual risks of forcing something the size of a watermelon through a hole the size of a lemon. Things, stretch, tear, brake (coccyx, pelvic floor, etc.)... and the NHS is often nowhere to be found when you want them fixed later. 
"The risks are higher for emergency c-sections where, for example, the mother's stomach may not be empty when anaesthesia is applied."
Ah, an excellent reason for a nice planned elective one where this wil not be the case. However, even with my planned vaginal birth, follwed by induction, followed be fetal distress, and then a crash section at 3am a day and a half later I was instructed not to eat or drink just in case. They fed DH cups of tea whist I siffered. But, then, when I was knocked out cold for the section I decided there precaution was after all a wise policy.
"There is also evidence that multiple c-sections leads to an increased risk of problems with later pregnancies."
I think you have to have quite a lot of sections for this to be a problem. I know people who have had 5 or 6 and are fine. But, I do agree on this point that lots are a bit risky. I am headed for section number 3 in December and am doing fine. The consultant expressed no concern about a 3rd section.
"Babies delivered by c-section are more likely to have breathing problems, less likely to successfully breast feed and are 20% more likely to develop type 1 diabetes than babies born vaginally."
breathing problems: there is a correlation here but not a cause and effect. Section babies are typically born earlier. And breathing difficulties may be a result of whatever caused the section rather than the section itself. And it may be because section babies are typically born earlier. Even so, breathing difficulties are usually very minor... so minor they don't do anything. One explanation is that a vaginal birth baby is squeezed so hard through the birth canal that it squeezes any mucus out of the lungs. However, this squeezing also causes things like intracranial hemorrhages as a result of the plates of the skull being squeezed so hard that they overlap. I think I prefer the risk of minor breathing difficulties, personally.
Breast feeding: I have heard/read quite a few credible sources who say this is just plain not true. I think it might be delayed a day or so since your body didn't receive the rush of hormones that it receives in spontaneous labour. But, within a day or two a section body has caught up and produces milk just fine.
Diabetes: I wonder if this is because mothers with diabetes give birth by caesarean. So of course babies born by caesarean are more likely to have diabetes because they are more likely to have diabetic mothers.
I hope I have established that whether or not a casarean is more dangerous or safer than vaginal birth is a matter of great debate and not a foregone conclusion.
Now, can we return to the issue of forceps vs. caesarean?