Refused to gives the appearance of knowing his intentions and his response to specific advice It expresses a point of view about his reasons for not taking security precautions if indeed he didn t there is a contradictory claim on the article s talk page Did not does not The Telegraph article does not seem to support the idea of an actual refusal to take security precautions I have now explained my edits in detail several times wee curry monster has not bothered to give anything more than a vague meaningless unsubstantiated these details are relevant His rv IP edits shows that he cares about the editor not the edits themselves 190 46 108 141