A SCOTS carer has been struck off after numerous sexual feedback round children in his care – together with telling one lady to “put [her] tat tats away”.

Steven Currie was discovered to have made a slew of inappropriate feedback each in entrance of and in the direction of children in his care between 2019 and 2021 at Encourage Scotland Ltd.

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

Currie from New Cumnock, Ayrshire additionally sang a music alluding to foreskin while peeling a banana, in addition to singing the lyrics: “It wasn’t the grass that tickled her arse, it was my finger”.

The disgraced residential care employee additionally put younger individuals’s underwear on his head on a number of events and in a distinct occasion, mentioned “I can’t wait to get residence” whereas making thrusting motions along with his groin.

Currie’s actions led to a listening to of care watchdog the Scottish Social Companies Council (SSSC) to contemplate his health to practise.

The SSSC’s full report reads: “Whereas employed as a Residential Care Employee by Encourage Scotland Restricted in Cumnock and throughout the course of that employment you probably did:

“In round September 2020, when younger particular person AA, was going to mattress, inform AA to ‘put your tat tats away’ or phrases to that impact, referring to her breasts.

“On multiple event, within the presence of colleagues and younger individuals: a. put younger individuals’s underwear in your head.

“Sing songs with sexual references, together with however not restricted to ‘it wasn’t the grass that tickled her arse it was my finger’ or phrases to that impact.

“Recurrently use sexual innuendos together with however not restricted to in or round January 2020, whereas sat on the eating desk within the presence of younger particular person BB:

“Slowly peeling a banana whereas saying ‘one pores and skin, two pores and skin, three pores and skin, 4 pores and skin’ or phrases to that impact.

“Then asking ‘what number of skins does a banana have’ or phrases to that impact.

“Say ‘I can’t wait to get residence,’ or phrases to that impact, whereas making thrusting motions together with your groin.”

The panel agreed that Currie’s health to follow was impaired, reasoning: “Your health to follow is impaired as a result of:

“Social service staff are anticipated to take care of acceptable skilled boundaries with the younger, susceptible individuals of their care.

“They’re additionally anticipated to deal with them with respect and defend them from hurt.

“Common use of sexual innuendo within the presence of younger individuals and colleagues, in addition to passing touch upon an adolescent’s breasts, exhibits a severe disregard for the boundaries in place to guard the basic relationship of belief and care between staff and susceptible younger individuals.

“It additionally exhibits a severe disregard for the emotional welfare of the younger individuals in your care, who’ve the correct to anticipate skilled and role-modelling behaviour from their carers.

“Your behaviour risked emotional and psychological hurt to the susceptible, younger people, in addition to harm to the relationships these younger individuals had – and would have – with social care staff.

Currie was discovered to have proven no regret for his actions, admitting to solely the primary two allegations.

The panel acknowledged: “Your behaviour seems values-based, which might be harder to treatment.

“Though you accepted your behaviour at allegations 1 and a pair of.a. and that it was inappropriate, you deny all different behaviour.

“You present no perception, and given the sample of behaviour, we have now severe considerations that the behaviour can be repeated.”

The panel agreed that eradicating Currie from the care register was essentially the most acceptable motion.

They defined: “After referring to our choices steerage, we determined to impose a Elimination Order, eradicating your registration from the SSSC Register.

“A warning wouldn’t be acceptable as it might not adequately handle the impairment of your health to follow.

“Your behaviour was deliberate. You had been an skilled residential childcare employee.

“The behaviour is severe, and a warning would give no safety to service customers or the general public. There’s a sample of regarding and severe behaviour.

“Your behaviour risked emotional and psychological hurt [to] susceptible younger individuals and risked damaging the basic relationship of belief between employee and repair person.”