Jargon

I was once at a teacher's union meeting where a man got to his feet and spoke for some five minutes and, though he sounded highly intelligent, used words that seemed perfectly OK, I must say I did not understand a single sentence - I understood separate words but when they were strung together I could not fathom what he was saying.
Martin Vander Meyer, in an article in which he speaks (intelligently, cogently) about the dreadful council tax writes that at a meeting he attended there was a debate about 'regional biodiversity strategy' (?). Someone said it "has a major role to play in contributing to the development of the Integrated Regional Strategy, as conservation of biodiversity is a core pillar of sustainable development." That's good to know, he said with an exclamation mark attached.
It's crazy: when committees are formed a certain kind of language develops or, rather, evolves that is full of the sort of jargon only members of the committee comprehend.
A long time ago I attended a weekend course (get together more like) on Film in Education; one of the leading lights of the course was a man from the magazine "Screen", maybe its editor. Whenever he spoke I made it my aim to try to understand what he was saying, but not once was I satisfied. He spoke in a jargon that, probably, other "Screen" people would have understood but I didn't. Individual words I knew (most of them) but strung together they were, to me meaningless.
I had, I felt, been duped into attending this conference thinking it had to do with Film in Education whereas what it turned out to be was an effort to introduce Film Study into the GCSE (then O level) syllabus. They had invited a man from a government department to come and speak to them and listen to their arguments. He came, dressed in a suit with stiff colar and tie - he came, I felt, straight out of an Ealing comedy depicting a government minister. His face was pale, humourless and composed like a doctor's as he listened to the arguments (including one from our "Screen" rep whose contribution, of course I did not follow) and when everyone had finished he spoke. It was almost beautiful. Calmly, logically, as if working on a specimen that needed a thorough examination, he cut all the arguments to pieces and after he had done so, he left, placing his government trillby firmly on his head and saying goodbye to the stunned audience.
I have never beheld such a thorough demolition of what had seemed (when I could follow them) sensible points of view, leaving them scattered to the air like so much chaff. He spoke words that anyone could have understood - anyone!. It wasn't jargon, it wasn't even government inspired jargon, it was plain speaking like Fowler urges us to speak.