You seem to be saying that having more sockets in itself increases risk. My view is that this isn't generally true - if risk increases, it's likely to be because of some change in usage, not because there are more sockets. I agree that one could assess an increased potential risk if an additional socket was located such that it was more likely to be used in a risky fashion (e.g. located such as likley to be used for outdoor equipment) - but I have been specifically excluding that situation in everything I've written.
If it were literally never used (or 'touched') then that surely would be true - and any buried wire which represents a risk to someone with hammer and nails has always been there - so no change in risk. In terms of 'touching' (rather than 'using'), I supose that one additional non-RCD-protected socket theoretically increases the risk to children with screwdrivers/paperclips, or decorators, but I would imagine that the increase in risk would be extremely small (if there were already lots of similar sockets).
Whatever, as I wrote last night, despite all our discussion, the OP hasn't yet told us that the circuit isn't RCD protected - so the discussion may all be moot!
Kind Regards, John
