The usual approach is that if a court identifies content it must be taken down, and with that in mind the platform is not liable except to the extent it directed it to exist. For example, the “exceptions” listed here are common to EU/UK countries as they were part of an EU-wide directive. Wolfery meets all three to some aspect - it is a communications network, a cache for such communications, and an image host - it has policy addressing the hosted images.
The UK Online Safety/Harms act mentioned earlier does increase regulation but also excludes text as being considered pornographic. It requires sites to identify risks to children and of illegal conduct - like offering knives for sale, spreading terrorism or promoting RL suicide - and document them internally, and in some cases to implement age-verification (but again, text is not an issue they wish to address) - I think the prior policy change addresses this.
The biggest risk to a site outside UK jurisdiction is being blocked and having UK-based/operated funding withdrawn. I don’t believe they have the power to compel an external site to divulge information about moderators who may be in the UK etc. And Wolfery would be far, far down any priority list - their focus is sites offering RL video porn trivially accessibile to children or pro-suicide/body-harm forums, not furry roleplayers.