` :::::: ``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.    `