The reporter in blue scoffs at a heavily-scripted question asked by the reporter in red; China is now (this week) trying to remove this scene from the Internet, just like Bergot tries to remove staff publications from the intranet.



Summary: The EPO is trying very hard to silence not only the union but also staff representatives; it's evidently worried that the lies told by Team Battistelli will be refuted and morale be affected by reality

THE EPO is connected to a fraud (warning: epo.org link), but employees are not allowed to say that, even if it's in today's news. Our understanding, based on reliable sources, is that there is also fraud inside the EPO, but nobody is brave enough to leak the evidence.

"Why would scholars ever choose to apply for work at an employer like that? Unless of course the EPO has already corrupted enough media and academia to mislead job applicants or hide the facts?"As we shall show in our next post, things are pretty grim at the EPO, yet nobody inside the EPO is allowed to speak about it. And according to this new report titled "EPO staff committee argues against publication review" (already cited by SUEPO), the EPO's staff committee asked the management: “Would you refuse one publication describing the status quo because the prospect of a future reform causes some (in our view justified) unrest?”

The staff committee also said to Team Battistelli: “We feel obliged here to remind you that freedom of communication is part and parcel of freedom of speech.”

Yes. Well...

Team Battistelli really has become this oppressive. It censored us around 2014 and SUEPO too around that time (in various ways). Like Xi and CPC do (to journalists, blogs, social media sites, activists and so on). They threaten people and often retaliate for saying truths, even if it's merely communicated between one member of staff and another. Here's a portion from this new article:

The European Patent Office’s (EPO) Central Staff Committee (CSC) has issued a rebuttal to Elodie Bergot, principal director of Human Resources at the office, over a controversial CSC publication which criticised the office for alleged misconduct.

Bergot halted the publication of the CSC’s article, which took aim at recent employment proposals pushed at the office, and asked whether current EPO president, Benoît Battistelli, was attempting to rush through the “harmful reform” before the end of his tenure.

In a letter to CSC chairman Joachim Michels, Bergot suggested that the CSC should “review the content of the proposed publication and delete or modify the parts that are offensive to individuals”.

Responding to Bergot’s request, the CSC said it was “at a loss” over Bergot’s criticisms of anonymous reports allegedly circulated by staff representatives regarding the working group on modernisation of the employment framework, which Bergot argued would “generate suspicion and unjustified quiet”.

The committee asked: “Would you refuse one publication describing the status quo because the prospect of a future reform causes some (in our view justified) unrest?”

Why would scholars ever choose to apply for work at an employer like that? Unless of course the EPO has already corrupted enough media and academia to mislead job applicants or hide the facts?

Term limits have not been removed by the EPO/AC (if any such hard limits existed); but Battistelli already lobbied hard to ensure that an old friend of his becomes the next EPO President. Battistelli may remain President 'in spirit' for years to come. Campinos owes him one! Maybe they learned a trick or two in all these meetings with Chinese officials. ⬆