He was the man they demanded [should] be fired.

[navi tasan]

1) He was the man they demanded be fired.
2) He was the man they demanded should be fired.

Are the above sentences correct? I wrote them.

They demanded that a man (should) be fired. He was that man.
He was that man....

I think in American English the 'should' is there and in British English it isn't... or maybe it is the other way around.

 

[Skrej]

Both are acceptable in AmE. I have a slight preference for the first one, but very likely would utter the second one as well.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'd use the first but I hear the second a lot.

 

[jutfrank]

The 'should' is not necessary at all. They may think that he should be fired, but what they demand is that he is fired, not that he should be.

 

[Annabel Lee]

They may think that he should be fired, but what they demand is that he is fired, not that he should be.

I know that I couldn't use is fired there, as a native speaker of American English. According to Quirk et al. (1985), the possibility of using an indicative verb (like is) in a that-clause complementing demand is "largely restricted" to British English. They write, in their section on what they call "suasive verbs," of which demand is one:

"These verbs can be followed by a that-clause either with putative should or with the mandative subjunctive. A third possibility, a that-clause with an indicative verb, is largely restricted to BrE: ​

​

[1] People are demanding that she (should leave / leave / leaves [esp. BrE]) the company" (page 1182). ​

 

[jutfrank]

I didn't mean to suggest using 'is' after the suasive verb 'demand'. My point is that there's no reason (that's apparent to me) to include this putative 'should'. Sentence 2 with subjunctive 'be' suffices.