No, you've quite clearly got that wrong as I don't have any chip on my shoulder.
What actually happened is that I, too, saw both sides of the argument, pointing out that zero hour contracts might work for both sides where the employees in question were people in full time education and under the age of 18 - to which you glibly replied "meanwhile back in the real world", an utterly feeble retort that represented a complete absence of sensible argument.
Your words here are a bit hollow: " I understand that some piss-taking bullying businesses may exploit zero hour contracts, obviously I agree this should be stopped." Why don't you tell us HOW this should be stopped? My solution was to only allow zero hour contracts for a sector of the population I'd deem less vulnerable than most, and arguably most suited to zero hour contracts. What is your solution?
Meanwhile, plenty of developed countries continue to ensure their employment law doesn't allow for this kind of thing - New Zealand in this example. It's not hard to see why.
You would allow zero hour contracts for those businesses that don't know whether they are going to need a certain level of staff or not. To use the small cafe as an example they could need their maximum number of staff one day and the next, if it pissed down with rain all day, none. To use another example a hand car wash would need maximum staff on a beautifully sunny day and on a terrible windy rainy day close up for the day.
What I was getting at by my glib comment was if you got rid of zero hour contracts then employers would take other alternatives. They would I guess have to close or pay their employees by other means. Neither of which the treasury would want.