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 didnt  there is a contradictory claim on the articles 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