People’s Front of Judea
|
The JC’s amateur guide to systems theory™
|
Judith: They’ve arrested Brian!
Reg: What?
Judith: They’ve dragged him off! They’re going to crucify him!
Reg: Right! This calls for immediate discussion!
PFJ Commando: Yeah!
Judith: What?!
Loretta: New motion?
Reg: Completely new motion, eh, that, ah — that there be, ah, immediate action —
Francis: — once the vote has been taken —
Reg: — Well, obviously, once the vote’s been taken. You can’t act another resolution till you’ve voted on it.
People’s Front of Judea
/ˈpiːpᵊlz frʌnt ɒv ʤuː'dɪə/ (n.)
A collection of system insiders who agree that the system is malfunctioning are happy to pronounce publicly — semi-publicly — that something must be done to correct it but who, when it comes to it, are not prepared to do anything about it.
So named after the paramilitary group in Monty Python’s Life of Brian [I thought it was the “Popular Front”? — Ed] referenced above. The cynical observation that, when it comes down to brass tacks, those in positions to make a difference have too much invested in the wood just as it is to be bothered cutting down any trees. Especially trees of the type they shinned up in the first place to arrive at the exalted position at which they now find themselves.
To the extent their position means they need to make noises about cutting down trees, they will loudly and sonorously do this, and will convene focus groups, workstreams, townhalls and host podcasts and write think pieces
The theory is that the industry captains, thought leaders in our domain talk a good game about change and correcting inequalities they are generally too institutionalised, or in love with how the system already is, to do anything about it.
A classic Judean People’s Front is the one that will be at pains to entreat commercial lawyers the world over to write simple, clear, business-friendly contracts in plain English. Econmiums will issue forth from European regulators, US regulators, drafting doyens, prose stylists, legaltech bros and divers industry greybeards that simplifying contractual language is an utter imperative for efficiency, productivity, access to justice, diversity and inclusion and any number of other fashionable soups du jour — but will contracts get any shorter? Will they fuck profane expression which may refer to the act of sexual intercourse, but is also commonly used as an intensifier or to convey disdain.