Creepy Scots carer struck off after telling youngster to “put your tat tats away” and “making thrusting motions” with his groin

A SCOTS carer has been struck off after various sexual comments around youngsters in his care – including telling one girl to “put [her] tat tats away”.

Steven Currie was found to have made a slew of inappropriate comments both in front of and towards youngsters in his care between 2019 and 2021 at Inspire Scotland Ltd.

The 51-year-old made the aforementioned jibe in reference to an unnamed service user’s breasts when she was going to bed.

Currie from New Cumnock, Ayrshire also sang a song alluding to foreskin whilst peeling a banana, as well as singing the lyrics: “It wasn’t the grass that tickled her arse, it was my finger”.

The disgraced residential care worker also put young people’s underwear on his head on several occasions and in a different instance, said “I can’t wait to get home” while making thrusting motions with his groin.

Currie’s actions led to a hearing of care watchdog the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) to consider his fitness to practise.

The SSSC’s full report reads: “While employed as a Residential Care Worker by Inspire Scotland Limited in Cumnock and during the course of that employment you did:

“In around September 2020, when young person AA, was going to bed, tell AA to ‘put your tat tats away’ or words to that effect, referring to her breasts.

“On more than one occasion, in the presence of colleagues and young people: a. put young people’s underwear on your head.

“Sing songs with sexual references, including but not limited to ‘it wasn’t the grass that tickled her arse it was my finger’ or words to that effect.

“Regularly use sexual innuendos including but not limited to in or around January 2020, while sat at the dining table in the presence of young person BB:

“Slowly peeling a banana while saying ‘one skin, two skin, three skin, four skin’ or words to that effect.

“Then asking ‘how many skins does a banana have’ or words to that effect.

“Say ‘I can’t wait to get home,’ or words to that effect, while making thrusting motions with your groin.”

The panel agreed that Currie’s fitness to practice was impaired, reasoning: “Your fitness to practice is impaired because:

“Social service workers are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with the young, vulnerable people in their care.

“They are also expected to treat them with respect and protect them from harm.

“Regular use of sexual innuendo in the presence of young people and colleagues, as well as passing comment on a young person’s breasts, shows a serious disregard for the boundaries in place to protect the fundamental relationship of trust and care between workers and vulnerable young people.

“It also shows a serious disregard for the emotional welfare of the young people in your care, who have the right to expect professional and role-modelling behaviour from their carers.

“Your behaviour risked emotional and psychological harm to the vulnerable, young individuals, as well as damage to the relationships these young people had – and would have – with social care workers.

Currie was found to have shown no remorse for his actions, admitting to only the first two allegations.

The panel stated: “Your behaviour appears values-based, which would be more difficult to remedy.

“Although you accepted your behaviour at allegations 1 and 2.a. and that it was inappropriate, you deny all other behaviour.

“You show no insight, and given the pattern of behaviour, we have serious concerns that the behaviour would be repeated.”

The panel agreed that removing Currie from the care register was the most appropriate action.

They explained: “After referring to our decisions guidance, we decided to impose a Removal Order, removing your registration from the SSSC Register.

“A warning would not be appropriate as it would not adequately address the impairment of your fitness to practice.

“Your behaviour was deliberate. You were an experienced residential childcare worker.

“The behaviour is serious, and a warning would give no protection to service users or the public. There is a pattern of concerning and serious behaviour.

“Your behaviour risked emotional and psychological harm [to] vulnerable young people and risked damaging the fundamental relationship of trust between worker and service user.”