But - there is nothing wrong nor incorrect with passing traffic to a BS aircraft in the form of radar traffic...
There never was under the old services and there isn't now. The problem with the old services was that when quiet/bored ATCOs giving a FIS under LARS etc would give too much info to FIS traffic, thus giving a quasi RIS.
Some pilots also did not understand the services.
The new services will not change this - I bet you any money that 2 or 3 years down the line, some ATCOs will do the same (in the mistaken belief they are providing the best BS they can) and some pilots will still not understand the services.
Re-education, not an overhaul, was what was needed.
Non-radar derived info is just that, information obtained without the use of a radar. Using vague phraseology to a BS aircraft to tell them of conflicting traffic, particularly in the example from the OP, is nonsensical (and pointless - why pass vague position of traffic that is a possible collision risk when you have the precise position) when you have accurate info at hand.
You use the aids you have available. If you have a radar you use it, but you use it correctly i.e. you do not overcontrol/hassle/disturb BS traffic unless you deem there to be a (serious) risk.
Passing traffic in the form
And traffic to the other on the basic service "traffic is a PA28 routing A to B, VFR at 2000ft estimating point X at time 12"
is not the correct implementation of the services.
Using vague RT does not mean you are complying witht the rules under service provision, rather it implies a misunderstanding of the rules, and why they were changed!!!