Talk:Nick Griffin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Why the prominence of the homosexuality section?

Do these allegations really warrant such a prominent place in the article? It seems a bit obscene that these allegations are given greater prominence than the recent trial and retrial which most commentators accept were historic events. There have been allegations that George W. Bush is gay - serious allegations and websites devoted to the subject - but it isn't mentioned in Wikipedia's Bush article because most mature people would accept that speculations about someone's sexuality is not an appropriate topic in an encyclopaedia entry. Please justify why it is given such prominence in this article.--Suitsyou 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

10 lines in a large article is hardly "prominence". The reason it needs to be here is because of the extreme right's own views on homosexuality, going back to the antecedents of the BNP, including the National Front and its predecessors. Remember that the Nazis attempted to exterminate gays (and socialists and trade unionists) as well as Jews. Griffin's own stated views explain why this section is needed. The article correctly points out that, following the bombing of a gay pub, he said: "The TV footage of dozens of 'gay' demonstrators flaunting their perversion in front of the world’s journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures so repulsive." To be then accused of homosexuality by another leading fascist (Martin Webster) makes his own position questionable if not hypocritical.

His recent acquittal is hardly "historic". Who are the "most commentators" who say so (other than the BNP)? He was charged under a law that was bound to be contentious and difficult to enforce; that he got off is no real surprise. Emeraude 09:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sidenote

The mention of Farrakhan in the same list as Qaddafi and the Ku Klux Klan is misleading, to say the least. The "rogue" status of Qaddafi and the KKK are usually considered _proven_. Of course Farrakhan is frequently _percieved_ as demagogue, but this perception is frequently rash or off-hand. The views of Farrakhan and his public perception are worthy of debate. His mention in the same list as the KKK implies that this debate is closed or unneccessary, which it isn't. I've deleted this part of the sentence. Feel free to reword (not revert ;-)) the original passage in a way that avoids the abovemention implication. My English might not be up to the task. Thanks Johannes re 19:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes (Feb 13 2006)

Dogville, many thanks for your comments. I appreciate you agreeing to leave things in and also for taking things out, I happen to agree with you on many of your reasons why. I also like that you are intelligent enough to discuss these matters. I have made some changes again but hopefully we can discuss this. Please see below and my reasons.

Removed parts only substanciated by Searchlight.UAF/StoptheBNP as I agree with Dogville, we shouldn't used biased material to make a point (ref: National Vanguard.) Can’t use White Nationalist sites as support for BNP (biased, fair enough, I agree.) but in the same light you cannot use left-wing communist groups such as Searchlight and UAF and Stop the BNP either. STBNP, UAF and SL are biased, deeply flawed fronts - so-called anti-fascist organisations and are crammed with intentionally destabilising propaganda. It is thus no more reliable as a source of objective information about the BNP than the BNP's own website! I have used this reason to remove the below:

- September 5, 1999, and by Searchlight magazine, October 1999, which provided additional details and apparent confirmation from unnamed NF sources. Griffin has repeatedly denied Webster's claims, but so far has not taken up the invitation to sue him.

- *He also denied the Holocaust in several party publications prior to becoming leader.[1]

- *When the former MP Alex Carlile reported Griffin for inciting racial hatred and Holocaust denial, Griffin commented: "This bloody Jew, our local MP who organised the raid whose only claim to fame is that two of his parents died in the Holocaust."[2]

- *In the BNP publication Spearhead, Griffin wrote, "Some antisemitism may be provoked by the actions of certain Jews themselves and thereby have a rational basis".[3]

I think this is fair enough and am happy to add it back if a better source can be used.

I have removed the following because it is stated as a fact but isn't given a reference:

- *In 1996, Griffin attacked the Holocaust revisionist David Irving for admitting that some people might have died in the Holocaust. "True Revisionists will not be fooled by this new twist to the sorry tale of the Hoax of the Twentieth Century," Griffin wrote. {fact}

In thge interests of fairness and unbiased encyclopedic reference I had added ththis to the below for 'equality': "However, under Nick Griffin the BNP has a Jewish councillor and Jewish members but it must also be noted that simple criticism of Jewish power in contradiction to their small numbers is extremily unjust. For Griffin's stance on the 'Jewish Question' please see point 3) "It's all a Zionist scam.""

- Griffin's 1997 pamphlet "Who Are The Mindbenders" alleged that a cabal of Jews controlled the British media.[4]

I hope I make sense in stating this because I am not an expert with Wikipedia but I think I have valid reasons as this is an encyclopedia. Looking forward to hearing what you think.

--thanks for the post. I can't respond properly now and will not make any edits to your version tonight. I did want to say, however, that while I accept that Searchlight is not an unimpeachable source, I don't think the use of SL in this context is equivalent to the white-nationalist stuff I removed. That's because the things I edited were presented in the context of showing broad-based support for Griffin/Collett in their trial, and all they showed was that they have the support of the far right. Whereas SL was cited as a source of facts, not to demonstrate support from any particular area. In this context, SL, whatever its flaws, remains a registered publication that is as liable to libel law as any other. If SL has reported something as news and not been challenged, it becomes a valid source of news. It's also the only serious (if not perfect) publication that covers this stuff in detail, so to exclude it as a source makes it hard to cover the subject at all.

Having said all that, I'll leave the article as it is for now and respond again later.Dogville 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

--ps the annotation "fact" in curly brackets does not mean "this is a fact", it means "this apparent fact needs a source". So I wasn't saying it was a fact, I was highlighting that it needed to be sourced.

---Dogville, I comend you, I truly do! I am what people would call "right-wing" even though I reject the term. However, although I am a Griffin supporter, I do not shy away from facts (on either side of an argument) as I believe in real history! Again, I commend you. I may disagree on your adovcation of the obscene use of the term for a vagina when referring to him ("unnesesary honestly" that you stated) - If I have this wrong I TRULY apologise, I may have read it out of context) but other than that you are a true credit to Wikipedia. Believe me, some Wikipedians here seriously do not agree with "Real History" but only from a Communistic POV. I do not say this becasue we seem to have used both sides of ours brains together on this article but I truly mean that you are a credit here. Believe me, if we disagree on anything it will come out regardless of whatever article, but I just wanted to say thank you for believing in real history.

P.S. We strongly disagree on SL! as a source. Are you from the UK? If you we're I wopuld hope you didn't credit them too much regardless of where you stood. But, I again comend you on your further references. I would say this whatever opinion they held on Griffin. Believe me, their are things I do not like about him.

---Thanks for the kind comments. I'm glad that we seem to be able to edit this article reasonably despite what certainly sounds like a large political gulf between us. As for Searchlight, I don't approach it uncritically as a source for all sorts of reasons, but it is, as I said before, about the only publication to cover the UK far right in any detail, so its use to some degree is pretty unavoidable. Also, it's a serious, registered publication, so like any newspaper (and no publication is right all the time) it can always be sued. And they do get a lot of stuff right, which you must surely admit -- otherwise it wouldn't have been possible to find alternative sources for info that first came from SL. Dogville 19:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

Okay, I've restored some of the detail on Griffin's holocaust denial with more mainstream sources than Searchlight. I think that what's now in the section is on the public record and is not denied by Griffin.

I've even substituted a New Internationalist reference for the Searchlight reference you kept in, re Who Are the Mindbenders. (There are plenty of other newspaper refs for this but most aren't available on the web without some subscription.)

I've removed your comment "but it must also be noted that simple criticism of Jewish power in contradiction to their small numbers is extremily unjust" as it's NPOV. We shouldn't make our own judgements in the article.

I've kept your link to Griffin's article "It's all a zionist scam", but changed the phrase "For Griffin's stance on the 'Jewish question'", because that implies there *is* a "Jewish Question", which is again NPOV.

I've restored the sentence about Griffin's denial of Webster's allegations. I think his denial should be mentioned.

Hope you're satisified with the compromise. Dogville 09:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

- Like I said, you are a credit! Where you state, "Thanks for the kind comments. I'm glad that we seem to be able to edit this article reasonably despite what certainly sounds like a large political gulf between us." I again agree and truly respect this. I havn't had time to re-read the article but just reviewing what you have done seems fine by me, no complaints! To be honest, I wish I had more friends like you, you are more than capable of rational thought and put me in my place with good links and "argument" (I don't like that word)

Thank you! Althought, I still don't agree on Searchlight, LOL :o)

[edit] Recent changes (Feb 12 2006)

In the last 24 hours the section on allegations of Griffin's homosexuality was removed without explanation on the Talk: page, and several paragraphs were added, largely in an attempt to suggest broad-based support for Griffin/Collett.

I've made the following changes:

Reinstated section on allegations of homosexuality. This was reported in mainstream British newspapers and is of relevance not so much because it might be true (I have no idea, but the section does not claim as much) as it's a significant event re. internal politics in the far right, and a widely-reported incident in Griffin's recent career. Please don't delete sections wholesale without discussing here.

Removed the section about support for Griffin/Collett from 'Civil Liberty UK', because Civil Liberty is a BNP front whose founder and director, Kevin Scott, is a BNP Regional Organiser for the Northeast

Ditto the 'Christian Council of Britain', which has no presence in Google search outside the context of supporting Griffin, most of which speculates that it is a BNP front.

Removed the section about support from thetruthisnodefense.com, a website with no information about any attached organisation, and registered to one Preston Wiginton, who appears from Google search to be a white nationalist -- describing a single white nationalist as 'free speech defenders' is nonsensical.

Ditto National Vanguard and Nationell Idag, both of which are explicit white nationalist sites. Again, listing support for the BNP from white nationalists to give the impression of broad-based support for free speech is deliberately misleading.

On the other hand, retained the Rod Liddle article, because he's the one supporter listed in the recent edits who's not a neo-nazi. Nor is he necessarily 'the left', though. He's a journalist.

Removed a couple of sentences that were simply unclear. Dogville 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional edit, 12 Feb

I've transferred some detail on Griffin's history of holocaust denial from the main BNP page (which is too long). I haven't had time to edit it properly. Some of the statements transferred lacked sources in the original article and it would be helpful to have them here if they are to remain.Dogville 00:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Previous discussion

My edit was a goof caused by the fact that edit-warring pages change every 30 seconds and I was not paying close enough attention. I give up. You two knock each other out. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:06, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note: some discussion from this page has been removed: [4]. Maximus Rex 01:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitism

I don't want to be an apologist for Griffin, but his party's website claims that British (meaning white as well) Jews are welcome in the BNP. I am confused as to why an openly racist individual would bother to say this if it were not the case. I would like to see sources for the anti-semitc claims. He may have made the comment about the dominance of Jews in the media, but this criticism, irrespective of it being true or not, is put by many people some of which only wish to infer the imbalance of interets where any distinct group has a disproportionate presence. Such comments are understandably seen as antisemitic, but not necessarily should be. If the Irving comment is true then fair enough, but please cite sources Dainamo 00:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Far-Right?

Its very debateable as to whether the BNP is 'Far-Right' or not. Freedom of Speech, Proportional representation, distributism, Bill of Rights... To me that sounds very much like a centre-left standpoint. I wouldn't say they fit anywhere on the traditional Left-Right political spectrum. I have therefore removed the 'far Right' description, as I don't think this fits.

However, the fact he wants to move all foreigners out of the country and make gun ownership compulsory for anyone who has served in the army would push him more towards the right me thinks!

No, 'he' or rather the party does not want to move all foreigners out of the country at all, so removed again. I mean, with the Wikipedia article on the Labour party you havn't used the term 'Neo-Marxist' have you?

Using the model given by http://www.politicalcompass.org which, I think, is more representational than the simple Left-Right axis used in politics, shows the BNP to be 'Authoritarian Left' (this can be seen by folliwng the UK Election 2005 link on the main page). I think this is a fairer representation, as the Left-Right line here is purely economic, whilst the vertical axis represents their 'social' policies; obviously, these are rather authoritarian, which mean they are far closer to the 'fascist' branch of the social spectrum than the 'liberal' side. Does this aid the difficulties mentioned above?

Obviously, anything to do with politics is quite a troubled issue, but the spectrum given above seems to be detailed enough to give a well-rounded understanding of the party, whilst also being simple enough for most people to understand. allthesestars 23:36, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The BNP is widely referred to as a far-right party, notwithstanding the above objections. It should perhaps be borne in mind that Hitler's party adopted some nominally "left-wing" policies in its early democratic phase (and indeed called itself the German National Socialist Workers' Party) and Mussolini started out as a Marxist. However, all this changed when they came into power and only the silliest of revisionists argue that the Nazis and fascists were left wing. The BNP see themselves on the political right, which is confirmed by their attempts to appeal to Conservative and UKIP supporters. --Archstanton 04:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veritas Politician

Have removed the him from the category veritas politician as I could find no evidence of this at all on the web. Why would he join Kilroy Silk's party when he is the leader of his own??? Jackliddle 17:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Nazi category

Whatever one may think of Griffin, it certainly isn't NPOV to call him a "neo-nazi", a very loaded and POV term. I have therefore removed this category from this article. 80.255 23:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Nick a gayman?

I heard some rumours about him being a gay ... would it be legitimate to add this to the page? http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/cambridge/2004/06/294092.html see post by 'Lawrence'.

It's completely fabricated by far-left protestors. Nick is not gay, he has a wife and children. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.235.113 (talk • contribs).

Hm -- 'far-left protestors' tend not to think being gay is a problem in the first place. And Oscar Wilde had a wife and children. And Martin Webster is hardly far-left. But anyway, I think the article covers this topic as it stands. Dogville 07:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He's so ugly!

Remove the picture.. please!

[edit] Replaced picture

Replaced the picture with a better one, however I dont know wether the moderator will let it stay there. Somehow i have this distinct feeling that the worst possible photo is the one they want up there... 'Themackie'

[edit] Reference re glass eye

I have re-added the reference to the article which is the source for the information about his glass eye in the 'trivia' section.

My reason for doing this is that without this reference, the information is unsourced. I have also changed my wording so that the article does not seem to endorse the referred article. --Apeloverage 05:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Every reputable source accepts that a shotgun cartridge exploded on a bonfire. I wouldn't call 'Spiked' a reputable source. Unless you object I'll delete the reference to him being shot.--Suitsyou 16:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

“…multiculturalism claiming that it benefits nobody and only destroys the native culture, while 'watering down' the other culture and creating an undesirable mix which causes chaos and anarchy and the desruction of the traditional British way of life , with the consent of the ethnic minorities rather than by compulsion, as well as dropping complusory repatriation (a policy which would send all recent immigrants, 1 and 2nd generation, back to their land of ethnic origin…”

- This breathless section doesn’t meet Wikipedia standards and reflects unfairly on the BNP supporter.

The source for the photo has questionable copyright status, also (not that I'm biased).

-Horgen

I have redone this bit, and some other untidy areas. In particular I felt it was NPOV to call him an anti-semite, since he still denies it, so I changed that to "some claim" he's an anti-semite. Wikipedia rules apply even to pondslime like Griffin.

- Corrected assertion that Griffin was cleared on all counts.

[edit] Support for Griffin section

This section carries some kind of implication that Rod Liddle "supports" some of Griffin's views. In fact he only defended Griffin's right to air his bigotted nonsense. Rod liddle was not "supporting" Griffin - he was supporting free-speech. Might it be wise to rename this section? -Neural 16:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the title a little. If anyone has a better way of wording this, so that it doesn't give the impression that Liddle supports anything Griffin has to say, feel free to edit it. -Neural 16:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the part about homosexuality because I believe this to be a leftie attempt to smear Nick Griffin and the BNP generally. Throughout his life, Nick and Mark Collett have acted with integrity, although not always with the main stream views of this country. It is good to have some hyperlinks at the end here, which get across a radical right wing standpoint instead of the usual propaganda.

[edit] Nick Griffin + Mark Collett - men of integrity

The bit you deleted was fair. It says that the man who accused him might have been provoked, and it quotes Griffin's denial. 131.111.139.160 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "I believe this to be a leftie attempt to smear Nick Griffin and the BNP generally." Come on, the claim was made by Martin Webster, long term fascist and former associate of Griffin. There's nothing remotely left wing about Webster. Quote: "Throughout his life, Nick and Mark Collett have acted with integrity..." A shared life? Depends on your view of integrity I suppose.

Interesting that the originator of this section has only made contributions to this page and the seconder has mainly contributed here. That would suggest to me they are BNP supporters. Emeraude 16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] risk of major vandalism

this articule should be locked cos too many peeps will vandal it if they dont argee with his views.. and belive me there are a lot, someone changed the articule so it read "nazi scum" til a user set it back again.

peeps?--Lucy-marie 16:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

oh so sorry for the peeps who dont understand english.. PEOPLE!!!! is that better?!

Oh bloody hell, please learn to speak the language properly. This isn't the bloody gutter, you know. --Breadandcheese 22:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete Sentence?

In the article it says: "On December 14, 2004, Nick Griffin was arrested on suspicion of incitement to racial hatred, relating to a BBC documentary aired in July 2004 in which he was recorded as saying."

Saying what? Seems incomplete. --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sighning

pTHere are alot of unsigned comments on this talk page can people please remember to sign all comments posted on the talk page and can someone who knows hoe please add the unsigned comments.--Lucy-marie 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLP issues

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.

To be precise in this case: :I have paired this section down.[5]. It was a hatchet job full of weasel words. 1) the fact he's married with kids isn't relevant to his dislike for homosexuality or the allegations - that's just inviting people to make a moral judgement. 2) 'Allegedly provoked' - is pure speculation 3) yahoo groups is not a reliable source 4) 'so far has not taken up the invitation to sue him' - weasel words intended to suggest he's lying 5) 'According to some other sources, for example ' - NO, one example will not do for 'some' 5) the allegation that Webster's sexuality was well known is inviting a conclusion by the reader. That again is weasel. Unless a reliable source has drawn that conclusion, and we can report it, we should not infer it.--Doc^g 20:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong about all but the "Allegedly provoked" phrase, which refers to Webster's motive in publiahing the leafelt, which itslef is referenced in the Yahoo page which reprints it. (I will track down the leaflet itself so the Yahoo link can be replaced.) I will complete this reply later, but have meanwhile reverted Emeraude 20:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not good enough. Reverting me and saying 'you will reply later' is poor form. If you can't answer now - then don't revert. On a WP:BLP issue, it is unacceptable. It is better to have noting in the article, than to have material which breaches that policy. Do not reinsert this material without gaining consensus here first.--Doc^g 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

'Poor form' or not, here goes. I was not able to remain at the computer and promised I would return. I have. (And unfortunately typed in a point by point answer only to have the PC pack up on me when I tried to post, so here goes again.)

As it was, the section was not well-written but that is not relevant. A clean up could easily have been done. But, it was accurate and gave a good background to an important issue. As it stand now, it is bland and many readers not familiar with the subjects will be baffled as to why it even appears. So,

1. The fact that he's married etc is relevant because of who he is and what he espouses, because it makes his 'dislike for homosexuality' (your words) especially questionable. Remember that every neo-Nazi/fascist group in Britain since the war has been publicly opposed to homosexuality; Hitler sent gays to concentration camps before he sent Jews. This is part of their tradition. But (as with the German Nazis) it is inevitable that a number of members will be gay and will attempt to hide this. The point I'm getting at here is the hypocrisy; I couldn't care less what Griffin's sexuality is, but what he protrays it as is important.

2. On "allegdely provoked" you are absoutely right, as I said when reverting. There can be no way of knowing Webster's motives for publishing the Griffin story, though I suspect the suggestion given is probably right.

3. Of course Yahho Groups is not a reliable source, but it was not presented as one. It was simply a link to where Webster's story could be found. I offered, and I will still do it, to find a more reliable citation for the original; however it should be remembered that the other sources in the section do refer to the Webster electronic leaflet, so its existence is not in doubt. It would be nice to have a direct link to the original, but a quick surevy I have carried out has not shown the original (as opposed to commentaries or quotes) so far. It's possible that, seven years later, it no longer exists.

4. Webster is no mug. Far from it. He knows the libel law and undoubtedly would not invite someone to sue him if he thought he had the slightest chance of losing. That Griffin has not sued is significant. It's not a admission of "guilt" of course, but it does raise questions. Perhaps this part could be better phrased.

5. "According to some other sources.." This is referring to Webster's homosexuality, specifically in the 60s/70s. The statement is accurate and one source is given (incidentally, a leading member of the BNP and a long-time Bristish Nazi who knew Webster in his youth). For others,well, there's Webster's leaflet itself. Rumours of Webster's homosexuality were frequently used against him by his opponents in the National Front and now he is doing the same against Griffin. (1999 to be exact). See also Webster's articel in Wikipedia.

6. (You put 5 again.) 'the allegation that Webster's sexuality was well known' (your words). What allegation? The article says: "According to some other sources, for example long-term far-right activist and editor of the BNP's Identity magazine John Bean, Webster's sexuality was an open secret among the movement at least as far back as the late 1960s". To extract the key words: "According to some other sources... Webster's sexuality was an open secret... as far back as the late 1960s." What is alleged, if anything, is that Webster's sexuality was well known in the 1960s. This is correct. There is no 'allegation' that Webster is/was gay - there doesn't need to be because Webster himself says so.

In conclusion, I fail to see any real substance in your objections to the section of the article before you changed. OK, it could have done with a clean up here and there, but it reported accurately an important controversy within the far right and specifically involving the BNP, its leader and a former ally who was ousted in a fight for control. It was certainly not a 'hatchet job', everything was sourced (admittedly one only second hand, but I'm working on that), and, if you read it carefully, nowhere was Griffin "accused" of homosexuality in the article! The section simply reports that another odious person, himself gay, has made the accusation. As such, it is an important topic that needs to be covered (I know you are not suggesting otherwise) and I feel it has been done properly and accurately.

Might I suggest that in future it would be better to suggest important changes in the Talk page first rather than unilaterally make them? Emeraude 21:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

I have removed this line as it borders on racism plus it is stupid as very phew if any can claim Britain as their country given its history.

"Because everyone outside of the BNP are only going by what they "hear in the newspapers", which are normally under hold from the Labour Government, desperate for the BNP to not get anymore votes (Which, they are rising). The BNP isn't racist, we just want our country back. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.234.250.71 (talk • contribs).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/c/Talk%7ENick_Griffin_f4d8.html"

Categories: Biography articles of living people | Unassessed biography articles