A rotary isolator could be utilised, but to use all 4 poles they all have to be suitably rated and timed for correct switching if you are going to break each leg.
I prefer radials, rings are “ok” until they are not modified correctly, which is common for DIY works by people who do not understand the way a ring must be constructed to be safe.
A ring, when correctly designed and installed cannot be overloaded unless a socket is overloaded, the issue is, knowing what the loads are when the ring is to be designed.
A correctly designed and installed radial circuit cannot be overloaded either.
A radial is safer for incompetent DIY works because as long as a 2.5 live conductor is used and it is correctly designed and installed initially then it is difficult to modify to overload the cables. It is possible but this would generally involve insulation.
A red/yellow isolator operating mechanism is designated for emergency switching, a black/grey operating mechanism is designated for routine isolation, such as for mechanical maintenance, or end of day isolation.
Personally if my client insisted on a ring circuit, and a means of isolation in the supply, I would design and implement a “lollipop“ circuit, with a suitably rated cable to a sutably rated isolator as a radial and originate the ring circuit from the isolator.
One needs however, even if using RCBO’s mindful of the 10% maximum leakage on an individual earth leakage device as per BS7671.
If a full 32 is drawn from a broken ring, then even in the optimum scenario, the 2.5/1.5 flat win & cpc cable would be overloaded.
With higher earth leakages on equipment due to internal electronics, switched mode power supplies, LED lighting, variable speed drives, filters for EMC compliance etc. a supply circuit may well require a redundant cpc path.
A ring may well provide this, a radial will not.
Hence why singles (6491x or b, a6491aka H07V-R or H07V-U/H07Z-R) in pvc tube with metalclad sockets is a better option.