You are here

“Frightening and high” is phony and false

This topic contains 24 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Charlie Charlie 2 weeks, 5 days ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #50899 Reply

    admin

    By Nick Schager . . . According to Untouchable, there’s a reason most Americans think sex offenders, and pedophiles in particular, are incurable, and
    [See the full post at: “Frightening and high” is phony and false]

  • #50904 Reply

    Derek

    It’s unbelievable how false statements can be used to wreak peoples lives!! The justices Kennedy should have done his home work and not relied on one mans faulty opinion. This is crazy and should be corrected and that ruling whatever it was should be reversed!!!

  • #50905 Reply

    Glen

    Good article Nick.

    Sadly, as a former employee of this once great nation, I’ve often times seen the use of many propagandized reports that were utilized by big brother to sway public oppinion, in an effort to better achieve the Orwellian PTB’s desired end result.

    About all we can do is keep chipping away at it’s false foundation, and thank you for doing so. Until the laws created using these false justifications, fall from their own ignorant weight, we can only press forward under these archaic constraints. While I have no faith in government, I do believe at some point those who have the capacity to reason outweigh those who follow government blindly. So…there’s that

    On the other hand, It’s been some time since Gundy appeared before SCOTUS, and still no court decision issued publicly. Wonder why?….my hopes are high, my expectations very low.

    But thank you Nick for writing this.

    Respectfully,

    Glen

    • #50949 Reply

      TS

      @Glen

      Gundy was heard by SCOTUS just over three months ago (Oct 2, 2019) and the term still has months to go yet before it is done with it’s decision published.

      • #51056 Reply

        Glen

        Agreed and understood. Yet, in the majority of cases heard the ruling is often issued by now is it not? Perhaps I’m incorrect and impatient but I expected a ruling relatively quickly.

        I was not optimistic that a positive ruling would be issued by SCOTUS regarding Gundy, but the more time passes increases my hopes (albeit, probably for no valid reason).

        What are your thoughts about the likely outcome? And thanks for responding.

        Respectfully,

        Glen

      • #52098 Reply

        WC_TN

        I personally expect the ruling to be published somewhere around June 2019. That ruling, if it goes in out favor, will strip a lot of power from a lot of agencies. It will restore the separation between the legislative and executive branches.

  • #50944 Reply

    Phil

    Luckily there has been significant amount of research and publications from our very own government refuting the above named comment and statement. Why is this not being published and argued in the courts is beyond me. Decades of research from our very own govt but no-one wants to take the time to read it.

    Do your homework. It is not 4% recidivism rate for crimes of sexual nature. It is 4% recidivism for any type of crime…. of the 4% who commit another crime, about 15% – 25% will be sexually related. Bringing the actual sexual recidivism rate to LESS THEN 1%

    Here read it for your self especially with regards to the “online garbage porn”: people who are forced to plea to possession of some illegal are the absolute lowest rate of any type of recidivism, especially sexually related. One last truth. People convicted of a VOILENT CRIME are 25 – 30% likely to commit a crime of sexual nature in the future…. and the general population at large for 1st time criminal offences is 4-5%. So anyone who has been convicted of sexually related offence is just as likely to commit a crime as everyone else who is walking the street and never committed a crime yet, or shall I say has not been caught yet….

    Think about it!

    https://app.box.com/s/0oovneu4v5gll23jspb9qlkd0i3cxfnx

    https://app.box.com/s/mhmp5yxgbp7fnp6ml44qpj3hw1gjmymj

    https://app.box.com/s/kfys7bacvnuce9jfxbwbxjdwsj9kimqz

    https://app.box.com/s/abtzv9z7j2rgpw2tcp2gu8phzk6tkudb

  • #50948 Reply

    Tim

    Of course the people ignore the frighteningly high amount of gun violence present in our country. Far Far more folks have lives destroyed by murder by the offender unrelated to any sexual component. The people use their resources unwisely opting to focus on the sexual component. The right wing conservative has always embraced “illegal sex”. That way the can claim they do everything to make kids safer. The plain fact is many victims remain alive after the kidnapping, rape, or molestation. The murdered remain dead and quiet while victims outcry publicly demanding retributive justice and getting it in spades. If you raise victims you’ll soon find them. The people embraced the obvious ex post, and the will get what they asked for. The peoples claim to be them that abide by law, they’re no such thing. There is a law on Wisconsin books that uncovers me for registration obligation. Wis.stat.301.45 1g (a):
    “A person who was convicted on or after December 25, 1993 for a sec offense. ” (See wiki)
    So don’t even try to convince me our government operates under constitutional discipline. Shut it down and keep it shut! Americans shop Wal-Mart all you friggin want, sell out every American job. You really are a pathetic bunch and WE do not deserve Security NOR liberty. Sellouts!

    • #51057 Reply

      Glen

      Tim,

      Agreed. There’s also a frightening and high opioid epidemic I’m told by the news (I believe there is actually). In fact, I’m told it’s so bad that we Americans are more likely to die from it then car accident. Yet…still…ive not witnessed one piece of legislation introduced that is requiring opioid pushers/dealers be registered.

  • #50954 Reply

    WearethePeople

    Is there anyway that reports that are recently done on recidivism be sent to this Supreme Court Justice Kennedy? He need to be made aware of the facts. He should also be made to correct his mistake with his report. The untouchables need to be accountable for there actions just like anyone else. I often wonder how our Sex laws got so bad. The people high up need to stop and look what they are doing. There are a lot of people who lives they are ruining. Not just the person who is convicted of a sex related crime. It hurts the family and friends. Shame on you Unjustice Kennedy!

    • #50967 Reply

      Registered notoffender

      Kennedy is not on the Supreme Court anymore,he is retired and has been replaced by Brett Kavanaugh

  • #50964 Reply

    Saddles

    I like NARSOL’s grassroots effort to speak out about this with their platform and thats not to say others in this effort are not exempt. Sure with all this rationality on this topic and yes their is also good that comes out of bad or should we say the ends don’t justify the means. Makes one’s understanding of who the “goast buster” really is in the political game of deception and true justice. Sure we could all talk about the LGBT movement or other things but the point is who’s treading water.

    One has to wonder if we all have the knowledge of the truth today. Even one wonders who has the evil conscience today. I even wonder if the experts know what they are doing to protect man’s free will agent of understanding and truth. Even one’s liberty. Yes, we all have a moral crisis on our hands or did government banish understanding because of a (because I said so) attitude, or is spanking today a proper use of one’s understanding with their kids banished today. One wonders who is abusing today. Inalienable rights well it seems to be a thing of the past today in government or it would seem. No wonder some football players didn’t salute the flag.

    Now here this sex registry comes along and is it no different today than the lady caught in adultry. While people have their view’s on this in different measure’s, we all still need justice in this type of propaganda injustice. Some people can’t even speak out about a lot of this social media hystera or are hustled into court induced with the facts but the burden of proof is slack beyond a show of a doubt in a lot of ways. I should hope government is not hiding things under the rug or letting those in power take pock shots at one another over this type of pawn game. Protecting and serving with a ruse is not protecting. I wonder if ” just the facts ma’am* means one is guilty by justifible killing.

    Their have been some good comments on here Glen’s, WC, Tim, and many othrers also a lotof the women, but the one thing that stands out the most is true justice for others and thats what any grassroots effort is all about. Human Justice is a bit better than man’s justice. Should we have rational law’s in this rationality to understand that we all have human right in this ordeal. Look at abortion or gun control and compare.

    I wonder who starts in this liberal or conservative treehouse of injustice/ justice today. I wonders who the Psychologist is today, or should we all take a back seat today. I wonder who’s thoughts and intents are we to understand today in American Justice. I even wonder if we stand up for self or others in this right or wrong mockery

  • #50943 Reply

    WC_TN

    There is a short 7.5 minute video on YouTube entitled “Frightening and High: The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics”. It can be viewed at:

    In this video segment, Robert Freeman-Longo, the fountainhead of this fictional recidivism rate comes out against his 1986 article in Psychology Today” being misused by the nation’s highest court.

    There’s also a very telling interview with a woman named Barbara Schwartz, who wrote the D.O.J.’s sex offender treatment manual the Supreme Court used as their basis for the McKune v. Lile ruling. She openly admits that she made up her own “program” and cited only 2 sources: Robert Freeman-Longo’s 1986 “Psychology Today” article and THE DICTIONARY. Of singular importance is the statement she made regarding the fact that multiple scientific peer-reviewed studies have been done that soundly refute the “frightening and high” myth and yet the courts uniformly ignore these newer scientific studies that have empirical scientific evidence to back them up in favor of the soundly refuted “frightening and high” narrative. One has to wonder why any court of law would show CALCULATED AND SYSTEMATIC DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE to the factual studies that have been done in recent years. The only answer I can come up with is that the new studies, if recognized, would spell certain doom for large chunks of the sex offender registry. It may even spell doom for the scheme as a whole. One could only hope as much.

    This habitual defaulting back to a long-disproven LIE shows a disturbing fact that our courts are not basing decisions on the Constitution, but rather political and social popularity. Not only that, but I question a judge’s willingness to remain DISPASSIONATE AND OBJECTIVE when it comes to laws that affect rapists and child molesters. I think more judges than not picture the following in their minds when making a ruling:

    (1) What they would do if anyone raped their wife, daughter, sister, niece, etc or molested their child, grandchild, etc.
    (2) The negative response from the public at large if they ever handed down a ruling that would spell the death knell for the registry and its laundry list of draconian restrictions. Elected judges want to keep their seat on the bench. Some also have political aspirations for holding either state or federal office. Being known as the judge who shot down the registry lock, stock and barrel would NOT win any popularity points.

    The question every lawyer who challenges the sex offender registry and/or any one of a myriad of unconstitutional restrictions needs to ask is :

    WHY AM I NOT SERVING SUBPOENAS TO ROBERT FREEMAN-LONGO AND BARBARA SCHWARTZ SO THEY CAN DEBUNK THE LIE THEY HELPED TO CREATE? These 2 people should be hauled into court every single time a challenge is heard at any level!! They should have to tell in open court what they say on this video.

    • #51264 Reply

      Tim

      Wc,
      The article was supported by what the Catholic church was experiencing within its own ranks. The Rehnquist court was split 6-3. F & L are of them that fix people, or claim to anyway. They worked in the field of treatment. The problem with the treatment view is that it gives up on real prevention based on human respect for humanity itself BEFORE it’s disrespected in the first place. These questions are age old. Law has done little to progress on that score. The answers are cultural. Culture is a choice chain of individual s choices collective outcomes. Raising healthy children is far more important than raising happy kids. We culturally are busy working , both parents, or one. I think we may neglect our kids, by not offering them healthy sexuality.
      Our old traditional approaches, rely on abstinence which has real negatives as in the church. Human touch as a crime of MANIFEST EVIL????
      ONLY war mongers and ecclesial zealots would promote such notion.

      • #51330 Reply
        Charlie
        Chuck

        @Tim re the treatment view. As someone trained in the mental health profession, I would like to make mention of the fatal fallacy within the widely debunked but still applied treatment of “sex offenders” within corrections and other court mandated venues.

        As most are not aware, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual known as the DSM is a concoction of psychiatists and psychologists. One would suppose that it is entirely research and evidence-based–it is not. Much of the manual is based on political activism and pop psychology or pop culture.

        While there is evidence and research behind the compiling of the manual, there is much to be examined when it comes to application of certain the beliefs, biases, or understandings.

        One of the major complaints by counselors, of which I am one, is that the DSM is based on a medical model. That is to say it is an assumption that something has to be medically wrong in order to be diagnosed. You cannot cure something that isn’t a disease.

        For an individual to use their medical insurance for mental health treatment someone has to diagnose them with a mental illness or some other medically supported diagnosis. While many would disagree with that statement, we all know it’s true. At least in the profession we know it’s true. You cannot get reimbursed for your work with a client unless you have diagnosed them.

        A  diagnosis is for people who are ill. Counselors use a wellness model which is different from the medical model. As counselors, we tend to refer to their model as the illness model because it is declaring people to be ill, therefore treatable.

        We like to look at people from different various degrees of being well and struggling to get more well. Why is this important? I hear you cry. Because if someone is not technically ill, or suffering from a disease, they cannot be cured. It is that word cured that gets people in trouble.

        We’ve all heard them say that sex offenders cannot be cured. They can say this with impunity because you cannot cure someone who is not ill. In other words, if it’s not really a disease, then it cannot be cured. This is a twisting of the word usage.

        “Sex offender” is not a diagnostic category in the DSM. There are sexual fetishes and things of that nature but not a diagnostic category of a sex offender. Therefore of course they cannot be cured. This allows people to parse words and mislead the public into thinking that it’s an incurable disease.

        The reality is it’s no disease at all. It is a behavior. Behaviors are chosen. Each of us that have been found guilty, and many of us who have not, chose to behave in a way that is not in keeping with societal expectations and norms. It’s as simple as that. It is a choice.

        Therefore, the entire concept of a treatment model is a misnomer. You cannot treat to cure something that is not an illness. You can however do behavior modification and other techniques to elicit a change in Behavior. You can also elicit a change in thinking. These two things are key to helping prevent recidivism.

        I work with many many men who suffer from a pornography addiction. Pornography addiction is thought of I by some to lead to sex offending. I seriously doubt that. What I know about pornography addiction is it is seldom about sex at all.

        It is actually a maladaptive coping strategy that is applied early in life before a young man generally establishes a real relationship. That behavior as a maladaptive coping strategy is so well ingrained that they can’t let it go even after they find a successful sexual relationship.

        In my humble opinion, sex offenses are very much the same. It is a choice based on some sort of a self-perceived need, or a circumstance, or even happenstance. But it is not an illness. Perhaps it is a coping strategy, perhaps it is bad behavior, perhaps it is learned behavior, perhaps it is cultural. It doesn’t matter. It is a behavior and whatever is learned can be unlearned if someone wants to go to that effort.

        The article that influenced the SCOTUS opinion was written by a man who is working with inmates who were primarily recidivist or considered to be too dangerous to be released. He was not working with the general public. He was not working with the more ordinary forms of sexual offending. And he was not giving scientifically back statistical information. He was opining on his own client population.

        Sorry for the length, but I just had to get all that out to someone who would care to hear it.

        • #51433 Reply

          Dustin

          @ Chuck,

          I’ve been saying that for years – stupidity is not a mental illness requiring “treatment.”

          I’m in the early stages of challenging the “treatment” requirements (including polygraphs*) of my probation now. Having a jurisdiction problem; the county I live in claims jurisdiction is in the convicting county and vice versa. I’m currently waiting for the state supreme court to settle that issue. (Note: Jurisdiction is in the county of residence, as stated in the statute that the court directly quoted in its order denying the opening of my case) It’s a bit frustrating – they keep advising to hire a lawyer (which I can’t afford and no one will take pro bono) and most judges presume a lay person is functionally illiterate regarding law and precedent, particularly when politically popular law and procedure are in dispute.

          Georgia has an entire title covering the requirements that must be met for a court to impose involuntary mental health treatment and the rights of the patient in those circumstances. The court-ordered program I’m forced into doesn’t comply with any of it. Georgia law even concedes that a person is of sound mind both when committing the offense and at trial/plea hearing, absent proof to the contrary. Further, the prison system mandates completion of a treatment program (which I have done), leaving a lot of questions I intend to ask the court system that I’m sure they’d like to avoid. Betting it’s similar in all states.

          The thing is (in my view) that “treatment” has nothing to do with recidivism prevention or public safety at all. It’s merely another means of supervision and manner of ensuring the individual spends the better part of his parole or probation (or life, in some cases) running in and out of jail/prison.

          *Intend to point out that since the courts acknowledge that polygraphs are unreliable, it makes no sense to mandate them either directly or indirectly (by forcing probationers into “treatment” programs that require them). Georgia superior courts tend to muddy the water regarding if polygraphs are required by the courts or the “treatment” program.

        • #51483 Reply
          Charlie
          Charlie
          Moderator

          Hi Dustin, perhaps the whole polygraph scheme is designed to empty the pockets of probationers who cannot even get a decent job, allowing a technical violation, thus justifying the need for more treatment. Can you see a self-serving circle?
          I was happy when I read that Colorado had passed legislation to prevent those profiting from treatment if RSOs from sitting on the SO management board any longer. Guess who it is who has promulgated most of the rules and regs that drive treatment? You guessed it, those who profit from it. Then, as I began to believe Colorado was finally doing something correctly in regard to the ever growing SO laws, the bill was vetoed.
          So, those who get paid to play, make the rules to the game.
          Treatment as a behavior modification actually can be very beneficial. When I had to go through treatment back in the year 2000, I wasn’t much happy about it but I did it because it was court-ordered and I was hoping I was going to get reconsideration. What I experienced low was a badly applied version of a behavior-modification program. So, regardless of how badly applied it was, and how resistant my fellow group members were, I decided to engage and do my best. I motivation was selfish, I admit. I wanted that reconsideration because I wanted to get home to my wife and kids. Of course I never got that. I was ignorant of the fact that promises don’t ever get fulfilled for SOs. nevertheless I worked great the program and I learned a lot about myself. I did learn about the origins of my behavioral choices and I was able to modify those and extinguish them. Now 18 years later I feel like I am no more threat than any other person in the country, and less of a threat than many. It is nice to be able to say that behavior modification can work to those who want to work it.

          My argument is, you cannot cure something that’s not an illness. And I think you agree. I just wish that we could apply rational and logical consideration to the conversation that takes place amongst lawmakers, profiteers, hysterical vigilantes, and everybody else who has never actually had to walk even a quarter mile in our shoes.

          Dustin, I would be very interested to hear how your case goes. You can contact Fred here at NARSOL if you wish, and he can give you my private email. Chuck

  • #51010 Reply

    Don’t tread on me

    I’m not asking for forgiveness. I’m not asking for understanding. I’m not asking for acceptance. I am demanding my rights be returned to me. I paid a price that was agreed upon to zero out my societal debt. If society can arbitrarily decide to deny anyone’s rights on a whim. We are all doomed. I am afraid I must insist my rights are returned

  • #51038 Reply

    Alice Chapman

    A new law is being introduced in SC that will limit places of employment for anyone on the sex offenders registry. This law is not very transparent as to what jobs are banned but can be used to ban any and all jobs. As a nation, we should want any one who has served their time in prison the opportunity to get employment and re-enter society. I understand there are a few on a registry that are dangerous yet all pay the price.

    • #51065 Reply

      Glen

      Alice,

      It does not surprise me that SC would introduce such a law as you describe, sadly. Even more depressing, to date, I’m aware of no SC SO laws that have ever even reached SCOTUS for an opportunity to be over turned. It’s one of the toughest states to live in if you’re a registered citizen regardless of the how long ago your offense was or the severity of it.

      There have been some victories over the last two decades, but most of those victories in my view have merely resulted in more Draconian restrictions. For example, doe vs Alaska ultimately resulted in a literal “give the states an inch and they will ask for a mile”.

      There have been so many oppressive laws created since the Doe ruling, that most former offenders now need a team of attorneys to consult before even stepping out of their own yards; much less, visiting another state, or applying for employment.

      The states will simply keep continuing to add more and more restrictions until a truly landslide ruling comes that ends the entire scheme. Almost a century passed before Plessy vs. Ferguson became Brown. Several centuries passed even before Plessy. This is going to be a long, long winding road unless there is a monumental victory finding the registry unconstitutional. The false argument sustaining its existence so far has been basically, “The registry is not criminal nor is the intent of the registry to be punitive”. We desperately need a premier case before SCOTUS that finally obliterates that non-sense. I’m really hoping that case is on the horizon.

  • #51079 Reply

    Tim

    I saw a story Today ( fri) claiming a Catholic Dioceses has now decided to post names of priest known to or have accusations ( not conviction) with kids and sex misconduct, ONLINE!

    These posts are unconscionable and unconstitutional as these lack due process. Any thoughts anyone?

    • #51126 Reply

      Registered notoffender

      Beats the registry

      • #51246 Reply

        Tim

        Could be.
        The people again follow Mr. Roberts’ leadership. Very bad choice.
        The like has been addresses by a certain judge, the one for the OK City bombing. His opinion the most direct attack, to date, on that very bad choice.

  • #51375 Reply

    TR

    An old saying that if a lie has been told repeatedly enough times, eventually it becomes the truth to those that want to believe it.

  • #51403 Reply

    James Coghill

    The minute I learned of this film I got it. Going to pause half way through it to reflect on what I’ve seen thus far. They said there was 750,000 of us. That number is incorrect. According to NCMEC, as of 2016 there were 859,500 registered sex offenders in United States. “Map of Registered Sex Offenders in the United States” (PDF). National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Retrieved 2016-01-07. I’ve noticed that all of the people who support the registry and tougher laws are all afraid. They believe that more laws somehow make them safer. Like it is their job to run around allegedly making the world a safer place. Mr. Book who waved a magic wand and made you Superman? Same to you Adam Walsh. Nobody asked you people to do what you are doing but you’re sure going to shove it down everyone’s throat. I really shouldn’t worry too much though, texting while driving is going to kill Mr. Book or someone else. Oh I should also mention you committed crime doing that and it’s all on film. It is a conflict of interest that Mr. Book is also in charge of the homeless.

    In Mr. Walsh’s case it’s a 43 year old crusade fueled by unquenchable thirst for vengeance. Doesn’t sound very American to me, more like vigilante justice. That’s quite a stunt. GET A CLUE, BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO US ALL. None of us are safe and none of us ever will be. What makes you think you have a right to be safe? What makes you think you have a right to have a different life than everybody else? Your logic is flawed. Your treatment of PEOPLE is an abomination. I haven’t seen a single person on either side of the line who isn’t afraid to the bone. The victims are afraid and the SO’s are afraid of everybody. There isn’t a single participant in the events of this film that isn’t afraid and when you’re afraid you can’t respond objectively. Walk away, lose your fear, shed your grief and then come back to the problem after you have let go of it and your emotions are no longer clouding your judgement. That’s the way to solve a problem.

    New York Senator John Flanagan said, “A lot of these people are repeat offenders. If it was something where you said that 95% of the people who commit these kinds of acts never do it again, different story.” Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime. (US Bureau of Justice Statistics https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1136 , Retrieved 01/27/2019). That’s exactly what we are telling you sir. Have you forgotten how to do simple math? 100% – 5.3% = 94.7%. Then when Mr. Book reads the stats he refuses to accept it. Why? Because the stats don’t support his fear. The stats didn’t take away his fear. Look at the laws that you created already Mr. Book. Have they taken away your fear? Guess what, it will never go away until you lose your righteous indignation, your hate and your fear. That’s a curse you bring upon yourself.

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)

    • #51510 Reply

      James Coghill

      I’ve never really liked criticism so I wanted to provide something more productive. That’s why I wanted to add this.

      Purity can’t survive in this world. Nothing lives in water that is too clean. Crime is not evil, for any of us would steal if we were hungry and any of us might even kill if we were without hope. What is the nature of evil? Do you sometimes feel love and joy? Do you sometimes feel pride in what you have accomplished? Do you sometimes feel good? The threads that make up our human nature are two ended. There is not a capacity for feeling pride without an equal capacity for feeling shame. One cannot feel joy unless one can also feel despair. We have no capacity for Good without an equal capacity for Evil. Should we fear evil? No. Shall we fear our own humanity? Should we fight evil? Who can defeat himself? For what is evil but the self, seeking to fulfill its own secret needs. All that is necessary is that we face it and choose. Deal with evil through strength-but affirm the Good in man through trust. In this way we are prepared for evil, but we encourage Good. In striving for an ideal, we do not seek rewards; yet trust does sometimes bring with it great reward-even greater than Good. What is greater than Good? Love. We are all formed of frailty. Let us all pardon each other reciprocally. That is the first law of nature.

Reply To: “Frightening and high” is phony and false
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post links or email addresses..
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">