It's Oxfam, they have very highly paid 'directors' or whatever the people who run it call themselves.
They take 'charity begins at home' literally.
Dunno whether this is a tongue in cheek comment, but it's been made in a public forum, so I think I need to make some sort of response (I have absolutely nothing to do with Oxfam, BTW).
Major charities are massive organisations, which expend large amounts of money doing work that otherwise would either not be undertaken, or would fall to governenments to fund. Oxfam, for example, has an income of £373 million, and employs about 4,200 people. Running an organisation of that size requires significant executive level skill and experience. If charities weren't able to pay for directors at a reasonable level for that amount of responsibility and capability, they would be left without management teams able to run such a large service provider. Oxfam employs six people on what I think are high salaries, which are fairly comparable to the rates paid to directors in the NHS, where I work. This is an awful lot less that these people would get in the private sector, but it's just about enough to attract people with the necessary skills to run such a large organisation. There are parts of the media (the Daily Mail regularly runs campaigns criticising the charitable sector) which seem to think that people working for charities should be paid a pittance. If that were the case, organisations like Oxfam, The National Trust, Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation and so on just wouldn't function. It is simply not possible to get exective staff capable of running a third-of-a-billion pound organisation on the average UK salary of £35k per year.
This is the reality for all large charities, and, of course, if you don't like it, you can elect to not support them. Oxfam does receive some governement grants, but this amounts to about three quarters of one per cent of its total income, so the overwhelming majority of its earnings are from its own fundraising efforts.