There are 24,765 results relating to "offensive behaviour at football"
|
Official Report
Meeting date:
19 December 2017
Justice Committee 19 December 2017
Agenda item 1 is a decision on whether to consider in private a draft stage 1 report on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill and a draft report on the Scottish Government’s draft budget 2018-19 at future meetings.
Official Report
Meeting date:
22 June 2011
Meeting of the Parliament 22 June 2011
Business Motion The next item of business is consideration of business motion S4M-00370, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revision to the business for the week.14:34 In moving motion S4M-00370, I explain to the Parliament that the purpose of the motion is to insert a ministerial statement on public sector pensions reform, which we are about to come to, and to bring forward tomorrow’s debate on the Offensive...
Last updated:
2 September 2024
PE2097_A
For example, as provided for under the statutory offence of threatening or abusive behaviour contained in section 38 of the Criminal justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 and the existing racial stirring up hatred offences in the Public Order Act 1986.
Official Report
Meeting date:
24 October 2017
Justice Committee 24 October 2017
Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1 Agenda item 5 is our second evidence-taking session on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.
Official Report
Meeting date:
21 March 2024
Meeting of the Parliament 21 March 2024
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 looks like another SNP law that will have to be discarded, just like the proposed named person legislation and the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.
Official Report
Meeting date:
13 March 2013
Meeting of the Parliament 13 March 2013
Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the effectiveness of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.
Official Report
Meeting date:
5 September 2019
Meeting of the Parliament 05 September 2019
I welcome that. I recall that when the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 was being repealed, he said that he would develop an anti-sectarianism strategy that was fit for 2018.
Official Report
Meeting date:
19 June 2014
Meeting of the Parliament 19 June 2014
Measures such as the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 are having a positive effect on offensive behaviour at football matches, which has reduced by nearly a quarter since last year.
Official Report
Meeting date:
23 June 2011
Meeting of the Parliament 23 June 2011
Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution The next item of business is consideration of motion S4M-00383, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution for the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill.Motion moved,That the Parliament, for the purposes of any act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in paragraph 3(b)(iii) of Rule 9.12 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the act.
Questions and Answers
Date answered:
17 July 2013
S4W-15809
Information on religious aggravations is taken from Religiously Aggravated Offending in Scotland 2012-13 and information on offensive behaviour at football charges is taken from Charges reported under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, published on the Scottish Government website on 14 June 2013. 2 The number of charges refers to the religion that the conduct was derogatory towards and not the number of charges where victims had the relevant affiliation.
