I suspect that such is the first inclination of the great majority of us (whether 'doing' or advising), on the basis that it sounds like the 'correct'/'decent' way of doing it - but, as I've also said, I'm not at all sure that it's a view that can really be supported if we actually engage in some ('electrical') thought.
The old reg (and a concept still persisting in the current OSG) that the number of spurs should be limited to the number of sockets/loads "on the ring" seems particularly (electrically) ridiculous, since it is (at least for me) hard to think on an (electrical) justification.
I'm sure that's true, and I doubt restricted to only "amateur electricians", nor probably only in the 50s and 60s. Speaking for myself (as an 'amateur'), I'm sure that some of my earliest efforts at 'extending sockets circuits' (in latter part of 60s, and the 70s) took place with no real understanding of the significance of the differences between spurs and 'the ring' - so if I wanted 'additional socket(s)', I would probably have simply wired it/them from the nearest socket, without any regard to whether it was 'a socket on the ring' or already an unfused spur from the ring....
... and, of course, needless to say, there were never any 'consequences' of that! In fact, in the real world, rather than the world of theory and 'cautiousness', I would imagine that it would be incredibly rare for any serious problems to arise because umpteen sockets had been supplied by a single unfused (2.5mm²) spur from a ring - let's face it, with Method C we're only talking about the difference between 27A and 32A.
Kind Regards, John