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