For the family of Martin Richard, the eight-year-old boy killed by the terrorist attack in Boston on Monday, the tragic loss is everything. It must be the same for the family of Krystle Campbell, 29, who died as she waited at the finishing line for her boyfriend to complete the race, and for the Chinese citizen, whose family wishes to remain anonymous, who was also killed.

Such tragedies will never be undone and the wounds will never heal. Recognising that terrible truth has to be the starting point of anyone who wishes to discuss the attacks from the point of view of civilised society.

Terrorist attacks appear larger because they get replayed more often

However, from a political point of view there are other factors, which were immediately raised after the bombing itself. Would the Margaret Thatcher funeral require more security? Could the London marathon, to be held a week later, go ahead? Should the media continue to focus on the incident and how should it report it? Doesn’t this play into the terrorists’ hands, who live off the publicity and the public fear?

My own perspective is informed by three sources. Let me begin with one that has been mentioned by some British commentators already.

Thatcher died last week but she almost died 29 years ago. The hotel where the Conservative Party was holding its annual conference was targeted by the IRA. A bomb went off just a few feet away from where Thatcher should have been, had she not been running late.

Friends of hers died and others were in danger of dying when she had to take the decision whether to stick to the schedule and give her conference speech or whether to give in to the security advice she was being given.

In spite of being, naturally, very shocked by the attack, she insisted on giving her keynote speech as scheduled.

Thatcher may not have been everyone’s favourite politician but the speech she gave that day was a model of sangfroid. Not least because the way she defied the terrorists was by hardly giving them any attention. Her speech continued to focus on policies.

She defied them by not giving them all the attention they clamoured for as well as by not going into hiding.

No one since has criticised her for this attitude. However, it is almost impossible to imagine a politician behaving like that today. Not because our politicians have less guts but because of the media pressure on them to come up with a response that is considered proportionate to the attack.

In a 24/7 news environment, terrorist attacks appear larger because they get replayed more often.

The second source that informs my perspective is the one that might seem trivial, if not downright trivialising of the human tragedy. Last week, was the anniversary that men my age are perhaps more likely to remember than more important family anniversaries. It was the 60th anniversary of the appearance of the first James Bond novel, Casino Royale, published just two months after I was born.

The successive novels were a companion of my boyhood, the ensuing films of my adolescence. I could enthuse at great length about them but, in this context, I want to make just one point and it is a serious one.

A fictional character created so long ago does not remain popular for so long unless it keeps up with the times. For all the changes that James Bond has undergone, however, one theme remains constant. The plots always featured terrorists.

That is at least how long acts of terror have been seen as the motif of a good story, which, of course, always needs a plausible threat. In the 007 stories, the terrorists have changed, over the years, from crime syndicates to mad utopians to warlords. For the past 60 years, however, terrorism has been seen as constant potential threat to free societies.

I find this perspective useful. It reminds us that we have experience in dealing with terrorism. Even in the real world, not the fictional one of James Bond, terrorists have come and gone. Terrorism may be a constant but individual groups have not often lasted. Usually, they have been defeated.

The third source of my perspective is my work as an MEP. Some of it has involved visiting and reporting on places that have been scourged by terror. Kabul, Baghdad, Islamabad... They are often places that have dealt with terror. Either because the leaders have been killed, or the group members turned on themselves, or because governments negotiated with some of the members prepared to compromise, isolating the extremists.

Ironically, opting unthinkingly to strike back at the terrorists with an iron fist has sometimes been the response the terrorists most wanted. It changed the character of the society they hated. Greater security came at the cost of making governments more unpleasant and arbitrary.

I have been greatly encouraged by the response of the US authorities so far. The painstaking search of the crime scene, gathering every clue, shows that terror being answered by reason. The 1,000 law enforcement officers detailed to investigate shows the resolve. The reluctance to identify any group prematurely shows circumspection.

I hope these virtues continue to guide the response.

John Attard Montalto is a Labour member of the European Parliament.