A weekly newspaper did not harass a reader who it had banned from its Facebook page, the press watchdog has ruled.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has backed the Doncaster Free Press over an argument with Mark Parkinson.

The row took place on the Facebook page of a local MP and involved a Free Press journalist conversing with Mr Parkinson using the paper’s official account on the social network.

IPSO deemed the exchange was a “mutually robust argument” and threw out Mr Parkinson’s complaint following an investigation.

The issue arose after Mr Parkinson posted a comment on the MP’s page claiming the Free Press had failed to ban “anti-Brexit trolls” and described the paper as a “toxic echo chamber”.

In response, the DFP’s official account replied to tell him he had been “banned and [will] remain banned for the vile abuse, racism and offensive names you were calling other users”.

Mr Parkinson later claimed the Free Press had “no proof” of the allegations, to which the paper said in reply: “Move on Mark and stop bleating on about being banned by the Free Press at every opportunity.

“You can’t go around calling people paedophiles, sex abuser and the like and not expect to be called out for it.”

In a subsequent email exchange, a reporter for the publication told Mr Parkinson that the DFP maintained its position that he was banned from the publication’s page for behaviour it deemed unacceptable.

Complaining under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, Mr Parkinson said the comments – as well as the subsequent e-mail exchange – constituted harassment and intimidation.

Denying a breach of Code, the Free Press acknowledged that this was a robust exchange in which one of its reporters – using the publication’s Facebook account – defended the newspaper but denied that this constituted intimidation or harassment.

It added a reporter had sent Mr Parkinson a succinct response via email explaining the reasons for that action which it considered to be appropriate given the nature and context of the post made by him.

IPSO found the Free Press had not made unsolicited contact with Mr Parkinson and did not find that the paper had acted in a harassing or intimidating fashion.

The complaint was not upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.