BR:
I was being polite. For "offer", read "able to provide"
OK I understand
As for the rest of your post, perhaps you've missed my point. There are times when I could pass specific traffic info even as a non-radar controller, but this is not part of the BS.... but if I don't pass it and there is an incident, I haven't fulfilled my duty of care.
I still don't see what the problem is. You clearly think that the traffic info you have passed before 12th March - such as my example "G-CD traffic info a Squirrel helicopter routing from X to Y last reported at 1500ft" - can't now be done under a BS. I don't believe that was ever the intent of the authors of CAP774. But you're rightly worried about duty of care. I think you should just go with your gut feeling - it's right to pass the traffic info, and if you're challenged, I would say you have good grounds for saying that sort of traffic info is neither radar-derived nor specific therefore it's entirely compatible with the CAP 774 definition of BS. Gut feelings have been one of the core elements of ATC best practice for many years and if we chuck them out now we're sunk.
Flying today I was happy to find three units (two radar, one non-radar) all providing traffic info to me on a BS. Keep doing it guys, it's the sensible and pragmatic approach. We don't EXPECT it but it's always useful as cue to lookout.
NS