Some context: Adam Craig Gilchrist, AM (; born 14 November 1971), nicknamed "Gilly" or "Churchy", is a former Australian international cricketer and former captain of all formats. Widely regarded as the greatest wicket-keeper-batsman in the history of the game, Gilchrist held the world record for the most dismissals by a wicket-keeper in One Day International (ODI) cricket until it was surpassed by Kumar Sangakkara in 2015 and the most by an Australian in Test cricket. He was captain of Middlesex in the domestic arena. Gilchrist was selected for the state under-17 team, and in 1989 he was offered a scholarship by London-based Richmond Cricket Club, a scheme he now supports himself.
Cricket has for many years debated whether batsmen should "walk", that is to agree that they have been dismissed and leave the field of play without waiting for (or contrary to) an umpire's decision. Gilchrist reignited this debate by walking during a high-profile match, the 2003 World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka, after the umpire ruled him to be not out. He has since proclaimed himself to be "a walker", or a batsman who will consistently walk, and has done so on numerous occasions. On one occasion against Bangladesh, Gilchrist walked but TV replays failed to suggest any contact between his bat and the ball. Without such contact, he could not have been caught out.  Gilchrist's actions have sparked debate amongst current and former players and umpires. Ricky Ponting has declared on several occasions that he is not a walker but will leave it to each player to decide whether they wish to walk or not. While no other Australian top order batsmen have expressly declared themselves to be walkers, lower-order batsmen Jason Gillespie and Michael Kasprowicz both walked during Test matches in India in 2004. In 2004, New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming accused Gilchrist of conducting a "walking crusade" when Craig McMillan refused to walk after Gilchrist had caught him off an edge from the bowling of Jason Gillespie in the First Test in Brisbane. After the appeal was turned down by the umpire, who did not hear the edge, Gilchrist goaded McMillan about the edge, and McMillan's angry response was picked up by the stump microphone: "...not everyone is walking, Gilly ... not everyone has to walk, mate...". The taunt was effective, however, as McMillan, perhaps distracted, missed the next ball and was given out leg before wicket. Gilchrist said in his autobiography that he had "zero support in the team" for his stance and that he felt that the topic made the dressing room uncomfortable. He added that he "felt isolated" and "silently accused of betraying the team. Implicitly I was made to feel selfish, as if I was walking for the sake of my own clean image, thereby making everyone else look dishonest."  Gilchrist has been noted for his emotional outbursts on the cricket field, and has been fined multiple times for dissent against umpiring decisions. In January 2006, he was fined 40% of his match fee in an ODI against South Africa. In another instance, in early 2004 in Sri Lanka, Gilchrist audibly argued with umpire Peter Manuel after batting partner Andrew Symonds was given out. After the argument concluded, Manuel consulted umpiring partner Billy Bowden and reversed his decision, recalling Symonds to the crease. Gilchrist was also reprimanded by the Australian Cricket Board for publicly questioning the legality of Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action in 2002, as his comments were found to be in breach of the clause in the player code of conduct relating to "detrimental public comment".  During the 2003 World Cup, Gilchrist accused Pakistani wicketkeeper Rashid Latif of making a racist remark towards him while the latter was batting in their group match. Latif who was cleared by match referee Clive Lloyd, threatened to sue Gilchrist for this claim.
What did he say in regards to his stance on batsmen?
A: Gilchrist reignited this debate by walking during a high-profile match, the 2003 World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka,
Some context: Burke was born in Dublin, Ireland. His mother Mary nee Nagle (c. 1702-1770) was a Roman Catholic who hailed from a declasse County Cork family (and a cousin of Nano Nagle), whereas his father, a successful solicitor, Richard (died 1761), was a member of the Church of Ireland; it remains unclear whether this is the same Richard Burke who converted from Catholicism. The Burke dynasty descends from an Anglo-Norman knight surnamed de Burgh (Latinised as de Burgo) who arrived in Ireland in 1185 following Henry II of England's 1171 invasion of Ireland and is among the chief "Gall" families that assimilated into Gaelic society, becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves". Burke adhered to his father's faith and remained a practising Anglican throughout his life, unlike his sister Juliana who was brought up as and remained a Roman Catholic.
In 1774, Burke's Speech to the Electors at Bristol at the Conclusion of the Poll was noted for its defence of the principles of representative government against the notion that elected officials should merely be delegates:  ... it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.  Political scientist Hanna Pitkin points out that Burke linked the interest of the district with the proper behaviour of its elected official, explaining, "Burke conceives of broad, relatively fixed interest, few in number and clearly defined, of which any group or locality has just one. These interests are largely economic or associated with particular localities whose livelihood they characterize, in his over-all prosperity they involve."  Burke was a leading sceptic with respect to democracy. While admitting that theoretically, in some cases it might be desirable, he insisted a democratic government in Britain in his day would not only be inept, but also oppressive. He opposed democracy for three basic reasons. First, government required a degree of intelligence and breadth of knowledge of the sort that occurred rarely among the common people. Second, he thought that if they had the vote, common people had dangerous and angry passions that could be aroused easily by demagogues; he feared that the authoritarian impulses that could be empowered by these passions would undermine cherished traditions and established religion, leading to violence and confiscation of property. Third, Burke warned that democracy would create a tyranny over unpopular minorities, who needed the protection of the upper classes.
Any other interesting information?
A:
Third, Burke warned that democracy would create a tyranny over unpopular minorities, who needed the protection of the upper classes.