Bennyclub:
I guess that warning could include radar derived information or other knowledge of conflicting traffic, which is why I will continue to call such traffic
Yes, but what you said in an earlier post was that when there was a "definite collision risk" you were "required" by the new rules to pass only "generic traffic information". Perhaps I misinterpreted you but I would suggest that no controller, seeing an unidentified primary radar return 12 o'clock, opposite direction, one mile from their VFR on a Basic Service, would say something generic like "believed to be traffic in the XXX area". It's a collision risk, so they would tell their BS traffic what they can see on the radar, just as they do now. It would surely be a contortion of the 'duty of care' principles as well as of common sense for any controller to think that they should deliberately hold back information which they believe may stop aluminium raining out of the sky.
NS