I really do love the American "but the veterans!" script, despite only them being a minority of the people involved:<p>> Of [the 32], 14 no longer work for, or with, us, some of whom stopped as long as five years ago. Six are ex-armed forces veterans whose public sector experience involved serving and protecting their country.<p>> Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them.
Only 30? Those guys need to get their act together.<p><a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/congress-protests-revolving-door-to-boeing-while-rushing-through-it/" rel="nofollow">https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/congr...</a>
“Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them. Characterising this as part of a ‘revolving door strategy’ does them, and all veterans, a disservice.”<p>Why should people who been in the army be exempt when talking about a company in defence ?