I admit I'm confused now. I think, but I'm not entirely sure, that you are making fun of the reply, thinking "that guy got a job, what more do you want?"
As I read it though the point was
> Although they have not met each other again since,
followed by
> she continued to provide him with financial assistance
the last part
> until he completed his degree a few years ago and got a job in the American oil sector.
is completely unverified, and given that the whole thing was a scam to begin with IMHO certainly does need verification in order to be believed.
Did they verify it? They only seem to report it. So you downvote me for raising this very valid question? I am asking, I'm not alleging anything. But there is no proof being shown and that's just a fact. I don't know why you bring the BBC in, nothing I read indicates they personally went there. It seems like they only talked to the woman, so what the BBC knows does not go beyond to what she believes. Is asking about an issue already offensive?
I for one did not downvote you nor am I necessarily putting down your point. I'm just saying that if you're right, the BBC is also getting scammed. That makes it seems less likely, but sure, still possible.
Tweets are news. The facts contained therein may not be. If Donald Trump tweets that climate change is a Chinese hoax, that's news. As long as the headline is "Trump Hoax Claim" and not "Chinese Climate Hoax" I fail to see the problem.
As I read it though the point was
followed by the last part is completely unverified, and given that the whole thing was a scam to begin with IMHO certainly does need verification in order to be believed.