His role means he has oversight of all child sex abuse cases in England and Wales. “So I know that the vast majority of offenders are British white male,” he says, setting the number at somewhere between 80 and 90%. “We have come across cases all over the country and the ethnicity of the perpetrators varies depending on where you are … It is not the abusers’ race that defines them. It is their attitude to women that defines them.”

Of course the ‘vast majority’ child sex abusers are ‘British white males’, would anybody truly expect anything different in a country where the majority of the population is mainly white? This seemingly reassuring statement to the Guardian fails to take into account that although white British men are the majority of abusers, the specific type of grooming offence and especially the very highly organised abuse such as we’ve seen in Rotherham and elsewhere, is dominated by Muslims. That fact cannot not be ignored. It is not the relatively ‘run of the mill’ perverted stepfather turning their attentions on their stepdaughter who are dousing girls in petrol or deliberately addicting them to Heroin or selling them along to other abusers. It is these aggravating aspects of this abuse that single out the Islamic Rape Gangs. Afzal is correct when he says that power over women is a factor in sexual abuse, but he fails to mention that Islam is probably the most misogynistic religion or cult in the world today.

Afzal, 51, is resigned to the ongoing scrutiny of commentators on the right towards the role of Asian men in recent grooming cases, but thinks that the focus is an overreaction.

An ‘overreaction’! How dare he call 1,400 appalling sex crimes in one town and who knows how many other similar offences elsewhere an ‘overreaction’. Also this is not an ‘Asian’ crime, it is a Muslim crime. There have been members of other ‘Asian’ groups involved in these offences but they are very much in the minority.

He is also wary of the suggestion found in the report, and reiterated by home secretary Theresa May on Tuesday, that a culture of “political correctness” had contributed to the authorities’ decision to turn a blind eye to the abuse of at least 1,400 in Rotherham.

Well what the hell was it then, Scotch mist? Why else apart from political correctness or corruption would a Labour council take so much care to divert attention away from the true perpetrators of these awful crimes, Rotherham’s Islamic community?

“I don’t want to play it down.

Afzal says this but then attempts to do that very thing.

The ethnicity of these perpetrators is what it is. It is a matter of fact. It is an issue that has to be addressed by the state, and the authorities and the community – but it’s important to contextualise this,” he says, racing rapidly through his arguments, twizzling a paper-clip in his fingers in time with his swift delivery.

Does it not look like Afzal is saying we need to sweep this under the carpet again and that we should move along as there is nothing to see here?

He notes that the amount of media attention devoted to child sex abuse cases is inconsistent. He led the legal teams that reopened and successfully prosecuted the Rochdale grooming case in 2012, over the abuse of 47 girls by a group of Asian men. “A few weeks after the Rochdale case, we dealt with a case of 10 white men in North Yorkshire who had been abusing young girls, and they were all convicted and they got long sentences. It didn’t get the level of coverage,” he says.

The difference in the coverage is the sheer number of victims involved, the brutality they’ve been put through and the underpinning ideology that drives the abusers. It appears that there has been collusion by the authorities, including those specifically designated to root out and deal with these crimes, over many years. The cases are not the same.

Where there is involvement of Asian men or men of Pakistani origin, he points to a practical, rather than cultural explanation – the fact that in the areas where grooming scandals have been uncovered, those controlling the night-time economy, people working through the night in takeaways and driving minicabs, are predominantly Asian men.

So now he’s saying night work causes violent sexual abuse. In one sentence he has managed to smear all night shift workers as potential nonces. Are these offences being committed by legions of late night bakery workers or factory workers or cleaners? Of course they are not, they are being committed by Islamic savages who have little or no respect for women per se and even less for non-Muslim women.

He argues that evidence suggests that victims were not targeted because they were white but because they were vulnerable and their vulnerability caused them to seek out “warmth, love, transport, mind-numbing substances, drugs, alcohol and food”.

This is ‘Bullshit’ with a capital ‘B’. These girls were targetted because they were and are, not Muslim.

“Who offers those things? In certain parts of the country, the place they go is the night-time economy,” he says. “Where you have Pakistani men, Asian men, disproportionately employed in the night-time economy, they are going to be more involved in this kind of activity than perhaps white men are.

What about those areas where the night-time economy is not predominantly run by Muslims? If Afzal’s theory is correct we should be seeing a huge and evenly spread set of cases involving non Muslim abusers, but we are not. Now why could that be I wonder?

We keep hearing people talk about a problem in the north and the Midlands, and that’s where you have lots of minicab drivers, lots of people employed in takeaways, from that kind of background. If you have a preponderance of Asians working in those fields, some of that number, a very small number of those people, will take advantage of the girls who have moved into their sphere of influence. It’s tragic.”

Again not every area has a night time economy dominated by Muslims, I live in an area where the majority of minicab drivers are white, and there is nothing like the problems of grooming compared to the taxi drivers in Muslim dominated areas.

In the acres of coverage of this issue, few others have considered the possibility of such a pragmatic explanation for the profile of the abusers. Only Rochdale’s Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, has attempted a similar hypothesis, telling the New Statesman: “It’s a complex jigsaw and ethnicity is just one of the pieces. Class is a major factor, night-time economy is a factor in terms of this type of on-street grooming.”

The idea that ‘class’ is a major driver for these offences has also been pushed by Labour’s race-card holder in chief, Diane Abbot the MP for Hackney. There may be some element of this of course, but that should not distract from the fact that Islam is a bit ‘rapey’ especially when it comes to children. After all, can we expect anything less from an ideology whose concept of an age of consent is flimsy to non-existent?

Afzal is at pains to play down simmering racial tensions by providing a dispassionate picture of the broader context.

He would say that wouldn’t he?

“I don’t want this to turn into a reason to hate Pakistani and Asian communities because this is a very small minority of people within those communities who are offenders,” he says. “You should not taint the whole community by the actions of several dozen, a small minority of men. Criminality begins and ends with the criminal, and not collectively with the law-abiding communities.”

The number of Muslims who are involved in organised child sex slavery is huge. Not a week goes by without one or more Muslim grooming offenders being nicked, and they are just the ones that the police manage to stir themselves to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute on. As for Afzal’s plea to not taint the whole of the ‘asian’ community then I will advise him to cease using the weasel word ‘asian’ and start telling the truth, which is that these offenders are Muslim. Bearing in mind the fact that Muslims are a minority, it is conceivable that for every Islamic rapist or abuser, there may be many, many more members of the Muslim community who may know what is going on and say nothing.

In the aftermath of the Rochdale trial, Afzal was disturbed at the way that some responded by muddling the actions of those prosecuted with their religious backgrounds. “There is a lot of criticism of religion – namely: ‘Is this a Muslim thing?’”

I’ve got some news for you Afzal, it IS a Muslim thing.

He recalls how after the Rochdale case, someone called the Radio 4 Any Answers programme. “He said the Qu’ran supports paedophilia. I’m not paraphrasing, that is what he said. He wasn’t cut off, he was allowed to say all manner of things.”

Why shouldn’t the caller have been allowed to express his point of view? I’m firmly of the view that the answer to ‘hate speech’ is not speech restrictions but more free speech.

“There is no religious basis for this. These men were not religious. Islam says that alcohol, drugs, rape and abuse are all forbidden, yet these men were surrounded by all of these things. So how can anyone say that these men were driven by their religion to do this kind of thing?

Taqiyya alert anyone?

“They were doing this horrible, terrible stuff, because of the fact that they are men. That’s sadly what the driver is here. This is about male power. These young girls have been manipulated and abused because they were easy prey for evil men.”

But he recognises that this will be a difficult issue for the British Asian community for some time. “In one case I dealt with, a British National party member was convicted of child sexual abuse. The response of the BNP was to say that he was no longer a member.

As a broken clock is right twice a day so have the BNP got it right on this thing at least.

The British Pakistani community cannot do that about members of their community that are involved in abuse,” he says, pointing out that they do not have the same option of neatly removing membership rights from community members involved in abuse.

Other communities, when these problems are dealt with correctly, manage to exclude abusers. People who offend like this can be shunned by co-religionists and even those religions that are big on forgiveness, and the public confession of sins before God, make sure that at the very least, offenders are not given opportunities to offend further.

He says that he is unmoved by the current outcry (“I’m not interested in national outcry, I’m interested in protecting victims”), but believes if there are lessons to be learned from the Rotherham tragedy, they are less to do with the dangers of political correctness, and more with the need for a radical shift in the way that victims of this kind of crime are treated.

Afzal may not be interested in a ‘national outcry’ but we need a national outcry over the fact that thousands of children, girls and young women have been turned into sex-slaves by the Muslims who have enslaved them.

Afzal rejects the suggestion that no action was taken by officials “to avoid rocking the multicultural boat”, which has been the one thread of the Rotherham report widely seized on. This has “very little” to do with political correctness, he says, adding: “I’ve yet to hear personally a victim say the reason why the police weren’t interested was because of the colour of the perpetrator.” He concedes that some victims in Rotherham felt that this was a factor, but still argues that incompetence rather that sensitivity to multicultural values was the real problem.

Yet another dollop of scarcely believable bullshit from Afzal. Would the local authorities in Rotherham and elsewhere be so wary of dealing with gangs of abusers if they were, for example Methodists? Of course they would not.

Instead he believes that the cases were not pursued properly because “everyone involved was not as competent as they should have been. I can only speak for the cases I’ve dealt with, but it usually comes down to poor investigation; we didn’t investigate early enough. People have not been as good at their job as they should have been. They haven’t asked the right questions. As a result the victims did not have the confidence to come forward.”

Incompetence was a factor in Rotherham, so was corruption and vote seeking, but to discount the ‘let’s protect multiculturalism’ factor, is foolish in the extreme.

He is disturbed at the number of times cases were dropped because police were concerned that they would be too difficult to prosecute because “the credibility of the young woman was damaged by her chaotic lifestyle”. Sometimes police would decide not to pursue a case because the victim had criminal convictions herself. “My view is that this is exactly what you would expect with a victim. That she has been led astray and manipulated by the abuser. He’s not going to look for the young girl who has never been in trouble. They deliberately target the ones who have the most chaotic backgrounds, the most troubled lives.”

Afzal fails to comprehend that it is not the police who decide what crimes to prosecute, it is the Crown Prosecution Service. I can understand the CPS dropping one or two cases because the alleged victim has poor credibility, but for all of the cases to be treated in this way, it is so outlandish a claim as to be laughable.

Afzal’s focus on the need to improve the way victims are listened to chimes with the work being done by his former boss, the ex-head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Keir Starmer, who is working on how to reform a criminal justice system he describes as “barely fit for purpose”. Starmer is drafting a proposed victims’ law, that Labour has promised to pass if elected.

So Starmer’s answer to these problems is to elect into government the same Labour party who allowed 1,400 girls and young women to be viciously abused by that party’s Islamic pets? Sorry I’d have to be drunk, stoned or certifiable before I saw Labour as the answer to problems such as these.

The legal system is itself guilty of wrongly classifying the victims of abuse as criminals. Even as recently as 2008, legal documents referred to children who were the victims of this kind of abuse as “child prostitutes”, he points out, “as if somehow what the children were doing was a lifestyle choice”.

We’ve heard this ‘lifestyle choice’ rubbish from other cases, not from the police but from members of social services.

Afzal has received criticism from all sides for his work in this area. Members of the Asian community have asked him: “‘Nazir, why are you giving racist or Islamophobes a stick to beat us with?’ My response to that is that we as a community should be carrying our own stick. Then there won’t be a reason for people to launch blanket attacks on the whole faith and the whole community.” He had hope for more “vocal” condemnation of the child sexual abuse scandals by the Asian community, as well as more support of his work combating “honour”-based killings and forced marriages – two other issues he has focused on in the past decade. “I do feel that there’s a deficit of leadership in some parts of the Muslim community. They could be much more challenging of certain behaviours,” he says, adding that this is the most effective way to counter the threat of Islamophobia. “The silence of people who may know something or have heard something only hurts our children.”

This comment from Afzal strikes me as naïve in the extreme. Did he really expect a community that sees non-Muslim women as dirt to speak up and deal with this problem?

He has also been the victim of persistent threats and abuse from the far right, who for a while ran a letter-writing campaign to the prime minister calling for him to be sacked and deported. “I was born in Birmingham. They can deport me to Birmingham if they want to,” he says. “But I think if you are getting it from both sides, you are probably getting something right.”